User:Jnasiri/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Employment discrimination

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the article on Employment Discrimination because I'm currently taking an employment discrimination class that's been interesting to me, and because I'm planning to work in the labor & employment space when I graduate. Accurate discussions on this issue are extremely important to upholding equal rights and opportunity in the workplace. Thousands of workers every year file employment discrimination claims, and they should have access to updated and complete information so they can fully learn about their workplace rights.

At first glance, I thought that the article was in good shape. It is clearly very dense and appears to comprehensively cover every key aspect of employment law, from the underlying concepts to historical roots and currently applicable law.

Evaluate the article
After reviewing the Wikipedia article on Employment Discrimination, I feel that the article is in great shape. The lead section is concise and gets right to the point in terms of the article's subject. It is also organized in a logical way, with the history of and conceptual approaches to employment discrimination being discussed before the articles dives into the current legal landscape. Generally, the content of the article is also extremely comprehensive and informative.

If I had to make one critique of the article's content and organization, I would say that there is almost too much detail in the conceptual/historical sections and not enough dedicated to the current state of employment discrimination law. For instance, there are four entire sections dedicated to the theoretical bases underlying employment discrimination law, whereas I feel that the same points could be made in one or two sections. If these sections were to be trimmed down, I would then recommend adding more detail to the current legal landscapes in each major geographical area, since these sections are noticeably shorter than the prior one. For example, I reviewed the section on U.S. employment law, and the most recent statement about sexual orientation-based discrimination was not entirely accurate (it focused on the position stated by the Department of Justice in 2017). Since the DOJ statements referenced in the article, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals from sex-based discrimination in the workplace. Therefore, I added a sentence to that effect at the end of the sexual orientation subsection.

In sum, the article is sufficiently well-developed in the theoretical and historical background sections, and also offers an outstanding explanation of the types of evidence typically relevant in an employment discrimination case. The article also follows an objective tone and does not take a position on any contentious matters. However, the sections on the current legal landscape could be updated to reflect the latest changes in the law.