User:Lillian paige4

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, this article does.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, there are a few major sections that are missing from the lead.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No, it does not.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is overly detailed.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes and no, it was last updated in 2020, so it's not too far off but there is more information from the missing 3 years that could contribute to the article.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is content that is missing, there could be more information about what to do in the event that it happens to you as well as give you more information about the people who have escaped or the escape rate.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, there are many different topics throughout the article that have more information than others.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?

No, the article has information that is bias.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are not claims that are heavily biased, the article is just written as though it is a journal.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are viewpoints that are overrepresented and there are viewpoints that are underrepresented.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

No, they are not.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the article does not attempt to persuade, but there is information that is bias.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, all the facts are backed up.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, most of the sources are thorough.


 * Are the sources current?

Some of the sources are current, the most recent source is from 2023 and the oldest source is from 1999.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

'''Yes, there are many different sources written by many different authors. They do not include marginalized individuals.'''


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

There are some better sources available, for example there could be sources added that are easier to access so that they can be fact checked.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Some of the links worked, one of them led me to a website where I had to purchase access in order to view it, and some of the sources do not contain links in order for them to be fact checked.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is easy to read and very concise, although it is not very clear.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No, I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, it is obvious where a section ends and a new one begins.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, the article does.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes, the images are captioned so they are easy to understand why they are necessary for the article.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes, they do.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

'''No, they are placed in random areas throughout the article instead of being placed in one area within each section. (Some are placed on the right of the section and some are placed on the left of the section).'''

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There aren't any conversations going on, there are just people adding in the information that they are planning to put into the article.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is not part of any WikiProjects and it is rated well.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Throughout class we talked about how there is usually some type of conversation going on within the talk page, but there is not a conversation within this talk page.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

I believe that the article is very well written and very helpful for just informing a person, although it is missing a few things that would make the article better it is overall a good article.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article includes sex trafficking statistics from many countries, as well as giving a lot of information on the basics of sex trafficking.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article could be improved by getting more information about the preventions of sex trafficking.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I believe that the article is well-developed, there is a lot of helpful information throughout the entire article.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?
Sex trafficking

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose "Sex trafficking" because this has always been something that interested me, because it is something that happens to people all over the world.

Evaluate the article
The article really brought a lot of useful information to my attention. It includes information about the statistics all over the world, causes of sex trafficking, as well as the profile of victims and so much more. I think that this article is important for everyone to read because it gives a lot of information on sex trafficking but I do think it would be better if there was more information on the prevention or the signs of sex trafficking. The sources throughout the article are mostly decent, some are not up to date but others are very recent and are useful to the reader. The images give a lot of information as well, although the images are placed sporadically.