User:Kimmy.santillan/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.


 * Politics in education (Politics in education)
 * I am extremely interested in politics and this article needs a lot more evidence, and more explanation.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * What's the main purpose of this article?
 * What the beginning/ opening sentence establish?
 * Where are the references?
 * Why does this not have more concepts?

Lead evaluation
There is a lot of missing information and links in the article. There is a need for more reasoning, concepts, and understanding. The main purpose isn't clearly established. There are minimal references in the article and they don't have concepts that can link and give a better foundation for 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?

Content evaluation
The content in the article doesn't seem to relate to the articles topic. It lacks the linking of concept to create an image. The content doesn't even seem valid in the realm of the topic because there is not dates, or really any evidence that could be used and analyzed. Yes, the content that they have doesn't seem to belong. There should be more information to give the understanding of what the article is supposed to be about.

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 doesn't seem to take sides, but that could very possibly be because of the lack of the information. It does seem that the last sentence is not written in the Wikipedian's own words, and the viewpoints are underrepresented throughout the article. There doesn't seem to be any persuasion in the article, but it just doesn't seem that it was written for people to comprehend.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
The first reference seems to be directly written by someone politics, so there is a very big possibility that there is bias in the article. The sources that they have for the topic is directly used in the article. Their sources are a direct reflection of what is written. They links do work, but they seem a bit confusing on how to access the actual books or references they are using. From the Talk page it seems that the sources are actually outdated, which is sad because you would want anything to do with politics to be current.

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
No, the article is not clear and easy to read. I struggled to understand how they points they are making link into the topic. I didn't see any grammatical or spelling errors as of right now. The article has no sections that can even give us summaries of what we read. It is extremely poorly written.

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
There is not a single image in the article and nothing to help us understand what they are talking about.

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
This is rated as a stub. It looks to be part of WikiProjects, and I don't think that it discusses the topic like we have in class. There is not background like we try to talk about class. The Talk page is showing that there is a lot of work to be done.

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
The overall status is really bad in my opinion. The talk page has a lot of things they would like to fix because there is the literal minimal in the article without any sound understanding. The article can start of with a better opening of the overview to the background. There should be more information to understand why this is important and why we should care that politics are in education. I would give more reasoning of why this is important, how this was developed and what the affects.

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: