User:Kqwu/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.


 * Policy debate: (Policy debate)
 * I chose this article because I have experience in the policy debate circuit and have spent many years debating and learning about debate.

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 introductory sentence of the lead is concise while providing an effective summary of what policy debate is. However, it provides a lot of detail on the debate organizations and does not provide much of an overview of the major sections of the article. This information is also included later in another section, and not necessary in the lead.

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 of the article is generally relevant and provides sufficient background. However, it is missing citations and includes details

The history section could include information about when debate transitioned from an inter-collegiate competitive activity to high schools, and debate's transition from paper to electronic documents and evidence. The section over debate resolutions conversely includes only high school policy debate topics, but it is up to date. The section on theory does not include any citations, and though generally an accurate representation of policy debate theory should be backed by evidence.

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 is neutral and does not make value statements on policy debate or the various arguments made in policy debate. However, the section on "Evidence" is rather long, and unnecessarily so.

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 section on theory does not include any citations, and though generally an accurate representation of policy debate theory should be backed by evidence. However, there are few reliable sources on the form and structure of debate due to the fact that there is no official rule-book of debate, but rather accepted norms of practice. The article uses the general phrases "many people" and "others" frequently, reflecting the lack of reliable sources.

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
While the article is easy to read, I think it should be restructured to present the types of arguments and structure of debate at the top of the article rather than the style and delivery of debates. It is inclusive of the major areas of debate, but some of the subsections are either unnecessary or should be included in a different section (ex. "Email Chains" under "Style and Delivery" is only one form of evidence sharing and should be placed under "Evidence" rather than having its own section, and the sections of "Burdens of the affirmative" and "negative tactics" could be two subsections under one section, with another subsection on "Theory" which is another category of arguments not necessarily under the umbrella of either the affirmative or negative positions).

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
The article does not include any images. However, this does not detract from the article and images are not necessary for the article to provide an effective description of policy debate.

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
There are only a few discussions, the most major of which regards slang terms commonly used among debaters (which is just another of the generally accepted norms within the debate community). The article is a part of Wikiproject debating, but this project is inactive.

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 article contains a sufficient description of both the history, structure, and content of policy debates. It accurately describes the different arguments in a neutral tone that does not reflect individual judging/debating preferences for one argument over another. However, the articles includes unnecessary information in a few places and could be restructured to be more effective. Additionally, there are few sources and it is missing citations in multiple places.

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: