User:Katiejg01/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of Article: Urban economics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this specific article to evaluate because it is discussing an interesting topic related to this course. In class, we briefly defined urban economics but did not elaborate very much on the topic's historical progression and the main concepts that these ideas are derived from. I also liked that this article has a very broad coverage of topics discussed in Urban economics because in class we discuss more specific topics in much more detail. Overall, I think it is interesting to get a little background on the topic as a whole.

Lead


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead for this particular article is very clear and concise. By just reading the introductory sentence it is abundantly clear what Urban Economics is and what it can utilized to analyze. After the introductory sentence, the lead contains three very brief paragraphs discussing the overview of the article's major sections. The article discusses six sub topics of Urban economics, which, although they are not each explicitly introduced in the Lead, are provided background details on. For this article, the Lead is mainly used as a method of introducing the concept of urban economics and the context of its history and creation. Therefore, the Lead does include information that is not present in the article because it is simply introducing background, not providing in-depth information on the topic. The Lead may be overly detailed for this particular article because the article only briefly discusses each factor of urban economics while the Lead gives a lot of background. It could definitely be more concise and still be just as impactful in relevance to the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic because it all pertains to urban economics. Each sub-section directly pertains to the article's main focus that urban economics has six related themes, therefore all information was relevant and did not feel distracting. Additionally, the content is up-to-date as it was last edited in June of 2020 and is regarding a very general and broad subject. All of the content is necessary in the article in order to make each aspect clear; however, there is some content I believe that could have been added to provide further clarity. Although I acknowledge that the purpose of this article is to give a broad over view of urban economics, some of the related themes can be elaborated upon. For example, the last theme mentioned, "government expenditures and taxes" only has a one sentence explanation of how it is discussed in relation to urban economics. More information on the topic would provide the reader with a better understanding of not only how it is discussed but also why it is discussed and the importance of the theme. The other themes are expanded upon a bit more and give the reader a more holistic idea of why the themes are discussed in urban economics. This article may deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because most of the article discusses the idea's of a white economist named Arthur O'Sullivan. While the ideas of other economists are mentioned, his ideas are the most prominent with little discussion of historically underrepresented populations. Although the discussion of the topics are kept broad, it is still clear that obvious connections between urban economics and underrepresented populations are not mentioned.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is relatively neutral as it does not provide obviously biased opinions. The elaboration of the six related themes of urban economics that Arthur O'Sullivan supports can be biased towards his particular views on urban economics. The article is supposed to provide a very general analysis of the topic of urban economics yet it is heavily focused on the ideas of one economist. Therefore, his viewpoint is overrepresented while the ideas of the other, less famous economists, may be underrepresented. The article would have been stronger if the author referenced other economists more frequently and expanded on their ideas in more detail. The article does not explicitly try to persuade the reader to be in favor of one position however the intense focus on the ideas of Arthur O'Sullivan may inherently persuade readers that his ideas regarding urban economics are the most well regarded or important.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source from different pieces of literature. Therefore, they reflect available literature on the topic and all of the literature that these facts are derived from are properly cited at the bottom of the article. The sources are not very current in relation to the article, which was last edited in 2020. The oldest source that the article uses is from 1992 and the most recent source is from 2013. That being said, most of the sources are from the early 2000s, making the sources somewhat dated. The article would be stronger with the use of a more recent source. The spectrum of authors that wrote the sources is very narrow. Most of the author's are middle aged white men with only one author who is a woman. Therefore, there are is not a lot of input form historically marginalized individuals. Additionally, some of the links work however at least one of them is linked to a website that no longer exists.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is very well-written and easy to read. The author uses clear and concise language that makes each topic discussed very comprehensible. The article has no grammatical or spelling errors, as it is clear that the author proofread his or her writing before publishing it. The organization of the article is excellent as it makes it very easy to follow the progression of ideas that the author is articulating. The author starts off with a very general idea and then begins to narrow down the idea and provide more detail on the specifics, leading to a well-organized article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does not contain any images however I do not believe that any images are really necessary to enhance the readers understanding of the topic being discussed.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations going on about this article on the talk page mostly regard the issues of the article that I have previously discussed. There are several concerns about the datedness of the article and its lack of acknowledge of more recent advancements in the field of urban economics. Additionally, some concern is expressed about the brevity of certain topics discussed, which I had mentioned previously. Mostly people believe that in a broad sense the topic is represented well but needs some updates in order to be more comprehensive. This article is also part of three different WikiProjects that are rated start class and mid-importance. Wikipedia discusses this topic in a more broad historical progressional sense while in class we examine more specific factors of urban economics. I believe that examining this topic through both the lens that this article provides and the one that we utilize in class is valuable to understanding urban economics.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article is a well written introduction to the broad scope of urban economics. The article's strengths include its organization and its concise yet clear nature. It is very easy to follow the progression of ideas being developed and the Lead does a good job of accurately introducing the topic and providing background on the topic. The article can definitely be improved by adding more recent details and research regarding the topic. The article completely ignores recent ideas and developments, therefore making the article very dated. Additionally, it should expand on certain concepts in more detail in order to fully explicate the concepts it is referencing. Overall, I would say that the article is well-developed yet underdeveloped as well. The overall article is well written and generally comprehensive but defiantly needs updated information and further explanation in certain regards.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: