User:Kegiordano/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.


 * Law review
 * I selected this article because it was listed as a C-class article, and it is a topic on which I am knowledgable, as a current law student and member of the Stanford Law Review.

Lead

 * There is a clear and concise introductory sentence. There is not a brief description of the article's major sections. The Lead does not appear to include information that is not present in the article. It is concise, but could benefit from slightly more detail.

Content

 * The concept seems relevant and up-to-date, though it could certainly be fleshed out. Further, sometimes there are assertions that there are, say, a small number of a particular type of journals, and those assertions do not appear to be empirically backed or very helpful--what is a "small number"?

Tone and Balance

 * The article seems neutral. Viewpoints of those on secondary journals may be slightly overrepresented, but it is not drastic. Further, all of the regions mentioned do not appear to be equally and adequately covered.

Sources and References

 * The article could use more clear and consistent backing by sources. A number of the links (about half of those I clicked from the references section) do not work, so they need to be checked.

Organization

 * The article is decently well-written, but it could be much better organized (and often more concise). It is slightly repetitive. There are a few errors (". instead of .").

Images and Media

 * There are no images and media on which to comment. There very well could be images of print and online versions of law reviews and articles.

Checking the talk page

 * There are conversations on the talk page about how the article is U.S.-focused, other articles it might be focused with, and ways in which it could be improved. It is a C-Class article and part of three different Wikiprojects.

Overall impressions

 * The article is relatively strong but could be improved. It is fairly accurate and covers quite a bit of ground. However, it is not extremely cohesive or well-organized. It can be tightened and made less biased (both geographically and in favor of certain viewpoints). The article is well-developed - it mostly needs editing and a more consistent voice at this point.

Optional activity

 * I edited the page slightly and weighed in on the Talk page.