User:Kgreen50/sandbox

Kayla Green

Article Evaluation

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

For the most part everything on the wiki page related to the topic. It gave great insight on both the benefits of broken windows theory and the disadvantages/critiques of it as well. Surprisingly, this page went into a lot of detail. Especially with the addition of case studies, as well as authors who have wrote books on the topic. For me, I was most confused about the 'critical developments' section. I see where it was going to social disorganization but it was a stretch to relate it to broken windows theory. They also used examples of riots from the 1960's long before broken windows theory was introduced.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Like I said above, using examples from the 1960's does not relate to a topic introduced in the 80's. With that being said, I think the whole idea itself is out of date. It was something primarily used in the 1990's and maybe into the early 2000's. The missing information could be how inconsistent it is with today's ideas of crime and what influences crime. It does cover the drawbacks to the theory but I believe it could still go into more detail than that.

What else could be improved?

What we learned from doing this wikipedia thing is that there is always room to improve on an article. I think there could always be more information. At this moment there is quite a bit of research that has been put into this article. There are additions to the article that reinforce what is being said.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

As I was reading I was never under the impression that something was speaking out of opinion rather than being neutral. It showed both the advantages and disadvantages of the theory. The text was never trying to make you believe that is something you should or should not support.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Nothing over represented. I would say that there could be more criticisms to the theory. Criticisms were underrepresented in terms of points made.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

I checked quite a few sources and they all seemed to work. I think the sources support the claims of the article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

From what I can tell most of them are scholarly sources, which tend to be neutral. One of the sources however took me to Frontline. I have always been skeptical about sources that that. I feel that is more my opinion than anything else. I find peer-reviewed articles to be more appropriate.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

I went to the talk page of this topic and there hasn't been a whole lot of activity since about 2008 if I read it correctly. Since it is a dated theory I kind of expect that. There was one edit from 2015. From what I can tell that is the most recent. There has been a couple of edits since then but it has been to modify links rather than add additional information.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article has a C-Class rating. I do not think this is a part of any wikiprojects.