User:Klementine2000/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: (Iowa caucuses)
 * This article is pertinent to current events as well as previous discussions about the role of capitalistic logics in internet politics. It highlights an important part of the Democratic party's presidential election process and the recent involvement of the internet application shadow highlights bring important questions to light.

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 of this article begins by going in depth which can be somewhat unclear to those who have not heard the topic before and are not knowledgable about certain undefined terms used. This first sentence also does not cover a basic definition of the Caucuses that is easy to absorb for all readers. Beyond this the lead does not provide a description of the major sections and instead opts to provide information about the basics of what occurs within the system regarding elections. However, this information is not present in the rest of the article as they never retouch on the expectation to drop out following voting. The Lead is reasonably concise and summarizes pertinent information but also goes into too much detail using unclear wording to explain a deeper idea at certain times.

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 body of the article is relevant to the topic and remains on topic with explanations of the party roles and the a brief yearly history starting in 2004. The content provided is up to date and covers up to 2020 however, given the how recently this occurred the missing information is reasonable and has been changed and updated recently, this gives the impression that it will be completed and kept up to date as information is readily available in trustworthy forms. There are certain content sections which are more data heavy than others and some which could use improvement or extra sources provided. Examples of this are within the subsections for the "Democratic Party","Republican Party", and "2008."

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 tone is neutral for the majority of the article but at certain points gives of an impression of judgement against the subject. Despite this, it does not appear to be biased to one position or the other. A majority of the article is in the form of facts and is kept brief which assists in avoiding taking a position on the information.

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 majority of the of the work relies on relevant sources and support however certain sections need more information and sources to support the claims. The sources provided are thorough in their coverage of newspapers, academic works, and other relevant and knowledgable sources that are current and cited as recent works. The links provided and the data cited in the article is real and reachable. One area of issue arrises in the 2020 section as the prevalence of sources disapears and information is much less citable or able to be traced back.

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 clear but at times lacks a more simplified breakdown of information, this is primarily clear in more recent sections as well as in the lead. Outside of this the structure is clear and well organized in splitting up the yearly data and later listing the results. The section breakdowns are clear and do not appear to have spelling issues or grammatical problems which have an impact on the readability.

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 are very few images present within the article and the captions present are adequate but do not explain the events occurring in the picture. Instead they provide the date and location of the image. The picture adhere to the policy and and present on the side of the article; they do not intertwine with the article instead they are loosely next to sections of related text.

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
Within the talk page the conversation appears to be limited to a brief discussion of "racially inflamed language". Within this conversation the discussion is about how to avoid bringing racial perspectives into the page and creating divides, one wikipedian answering is clear to say that if they wish to expand on race they need to provide a source and avoid making claims which are unfounded. There are also side points about data and questions that are unanswered within the article. wikipedians don't appear to be discussing the current events around 2020 as heavily as I would have expected, especially considering the lack of clarity around facts or how to lay out the claims and events.

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 article is good and provides relevant information about the topic. A few key strengths of the article include the bullet points about results and the breakdown for the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. The area on 2020 could do with improvement and further information should be provided for the yearly section to make it come clear and detailed.

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: