User:Keegan.Landrigan/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: Gary Becker
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Becker is an influential economist whose theories we have been discussing in Economics 351. His article is given a C rating, which suggests it has room for improvement

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?

The Lead’s introductory sentence is entirely serviceable. It gives some sense of Becker’s scientific importance, which is what the bulk of the article consists in. However, it contains information not present in the article itself. Some of the praise that Becker receives from other economists, while perhaps interesting information (especially in the case of an unquestionably major figure as Milton Friedman) is present here and nowhere else. The Lead could be made more concise by removing some of this information or incorporating it into a different section of 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?

The article’s content is relevant to the topic, in that it primarily consists in description of Becker’s scientific hypotheses. It seems largely up to date, especially given Becker is not a living economist, but presents insufficient detail on most of his scientific work. More detail of his scientific work needs to be added.

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?

The tone is largely neutral when it comes to the direct discussion of Becker’s work. This is especially admirable when discussing Becker’s politics. However, some of the praise of Becker does nothing but cite newspaper opinion pieces, and only serves the rhetorical purpose of bolstering the readers’ opinion of Becker’s arguments.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

While most of the important claims are backed up by reliable secondary sources, several of the article citations are to blog posts or newspaper articles which do little other than say what a great economist Becker was. The citations seem they could draw more upon current academic literature, rather than blogs. Furthermore some of the links now seem to redirect to the home page of the website from which they come.

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?

The article’s prose is readable. However, it varies between concision and bloat. Discussion of Becker’s hypotheses are too brief and superficial, whereas the Lead is full of too much irrelevant information. It is the section on Becker’s economic theories that makes up the largest part of the article, and it is little more than a list of hypotheses. It is a usable enough organization, though it is likely it could be improved in the course of making it more substantial content-wise.

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?

There are few images in this article. There is a photo of Becker, and nothing else. This singe image is captioned. It appears to be a photo taken by a Wikipedia user and therefore would seem to fit with Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. The single image is appropriately positioned for a biographical article. The article may perhaps be improved by diagrammatic illustration of Becker’s economic theories.

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?

The conversations going on behind the scenes are somewhat insubstantial quibbles. The most pertinent discussion concerns the superficiality of the scientific discussion, citing an economist’s blog wherein he discusses this article’s content. All in all, the way Wikipedia discusses Becker is broad and not deep, even compared to our brief discussion of Becker in class. His theory of the family is mentioned, and some of its claims, but not the reasoning that lead to those claims.

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?

This article is a work in progress. Its greatest strength is that with one or two exceptions, the neutral point of view is well adhered to. It makes clear Becker is a prominent conservative and draws attention to his political writings and disputes, while neither demonizing nor glorifying his opinions in these writings and disputes. The point that requires greatest improvement upon is the fact that the scientific content is a simple laundry list of hypotheses Becker defended, with little discussion of those hypotheses or why they are important to economics broadly speaking. That they are important is only communicated by citing praise from other economists. In general, this article is flawed but presents a fairly reasonable foundation that could be built upon.