User:Lil Rina/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(1992 Colorado Amendment 2)

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 this article because it relates to our class in the sense that this amendment in Colorado is part of American culture and showing how American culture is changing via the law and what is deemed acceptable. This is important because laws changing is a critical piece to understanding how the culture of an area is evolving. My preliminary impression was that this is a topic I know about mainly from hearing about it from others, but I have not take the time to research it and actually educate myself on the law.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section of this article is concise and clear maybe almost too concise. It explains exactly what the paper is about. However, the lead section could do a better job of explaining the sections of the article and how the article will disect it's main topic. The content of the article is relevant, but not up to date. It seems this article only gives updates on this ammendment until 1996. There are little to no equity gaps as the content only states the ammendment and the facts about how it was created and voted on. However, there could be more information elaborating on how the country and citizens of Colorado reacted to this ammendment. The article should also include how this ammendment is prevelant to our socitey today and any changes that have occured since then both in the law and in the culture of society. I would say this article is mainly neutral. It does show more of the republican side and those angry at the second ammendment. The article does not discuss how those in favor of the ammendment (minorities) reacted or were affected. The article does not try to convince readers to follow or believe a certain point of view, but it does not really elaborate or voice all points of view.

The article has multiple sources cited to back up it's statments. The sources are not very diverese though or current. This is obvious as well just by reading the article as it only gives information up through the year 1996. There should be more sources that include diverse points of view and various gender identities. While links to citations work, not all of them are accesable to all readers. For example the Denver Post requires a subscription.