User:Jimzhen21/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Topic: Economic Democracy

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * “Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public.”
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead includes the major sections of the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, the lead includes all the information that is present in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * This lead is detailed, and well-introduced to the topic of the article.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The content of the article is related to what is introduced in the topic. Most of the content is up-to-date, but a certain percentage of content sources are too old and need to be updated. In general, the content fits well with the module title.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The position of the article is neutral, and the title of the article has been discussed and analyzed from different angles and viewpoints. There is no such thing as a claim that seems to be heavily biased towards a particular position. Most of the different viewpoints were discussed, and the introduction ratio of each viewpoint was relatively even.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Most of the facts in the article are supported by reliable sources of auxiliary information, but there is still a certain proportion of the content that needs to be cited. Citations and data sources mostly come from literature and books related to the subject, which better reflects the content of the subject. But most of the information comes from the 1990s and 2000s, and the information sources need to be further updated. I checked most of the links and found that they are basically functioning normally.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The overall structure of the article is clear. The distribution of headlines and subheadings is reasonable, and the length of articles in each module is relatively even. The language of the article is clear and easy to read. However, there were slight errors in grammar and spelling.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There are no images or media included in this article that help to enhance understanding of the topic. This makes the overall reading experience of the article relatively boring.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

On the talk page, there were requests for citation sources, suggestions for restructuring articles, and re-adjustment of invalid links. This article is part of WikiProjects, Rated C-class, Mid-importance.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is generally well-written, the structure layout is relatively reasonable, the language is easier to read, and most of the content is quoted from reasonable sources. However, there are still some problems such as missing part of the citations for content, lack of pictures and media to assist reading, and some grammatical errors. Overall, this article is a well-developed article.

Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public. In addition to these moral concerns, economic democracy makes practical claims, such as that it can compensate for capitalism's inherent effective demand gap.

Economic democracy generally argues that modern capitalism periodically results in economic crises.