User:Kyle Uphus/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hart–Fuller debate

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the Hart-Fuller debate because it was a large part of a research paper I wrote last year, and is considered a major contribution to the idea of Natural Law v. Legal Positivism. My preliminary impression of this topic is that it is a larger part of legal philosophy than it is recognized for, and that the idea of Natural Law v. Legal Positivism has much more depth than it may appear at the surface, as it has been discussed for thousands of years, and is a very large part of many social injustice movements.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section - The lead includes a mostly effective introductory sentence. The lead could include the Nazi Informer Case, but aside from that it is concise and includes information that makes sense

Content - The content is relevant to the topic, but does not include a lot of recent information regarding the debate. For example, it could include The New York University Law Review's special issue on the debate in 2009. It could also include more context to the ideas presented.

Tone and Balance - The article does remain neutral, with the only biases presented being sides of the debate.

Sources and References - A majority of the information comes straight from the papers from the two sides of the debate, but there are pieces of information given as context which have no sources linked to them (mostly under "Philosophy")

Organization and Writing Quality - The article is well written, without any filler, grammatical errors, etc. Parts of the "Philosophy" section could be separated into context and where the context fits into the debate.

Images and Media - There are no images or media, but there could be some added to put faces to the two names.

Talk Page Discussion - Nothing has been added to the talk page since 2012, but the posters did make good points. They suggest adding more secondary literature, and overall adding more depth to the entire "Philosophy" section.

Overall Impressions - Overall, the article has a strong foundation, giving a good synopsis of both sides, but has a lot of room to add sources, and has many opportunities to go more in depth with the ideas presented by both sides. I would say the article is slightly underdeveloped.