User:Lsheban/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: (link) De-escalation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I believe I will ultimately use this article to contribute to for my final project. I believe this article needs more work in the section I am interested in writing more on, which is "police and corrections."

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead clearly explains the overview of the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not include descriptions of the article's major sections, it solely tells the definition of "de-escalation."
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content explains several aspect's of de-escalation and its tactics.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It is relatively up to date. The section I am looking to improve is from around 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there needs to be more content added on police de-escalation. I will focus on the social problem of trust in police which depends on police de-escalation tactics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The topic of policing does not have much on it though.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, they are facts from academic sources, except one subtopic, "social settings" does not have any citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * One person had written a long philosophical paragraph commenting on the article. It did not make sense and it seemed it did not make sense to other wikipedians either. The only other conversation was about an "empty tag" that needed to be removed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is not rated as a featured article. It is not a part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not directly talked about this article in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's status is a Stub.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The lead of the article is well done. It is short and to the point. It has good references and it is written in a professional manner. It is easy to understand and well organized.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by having more in-depth information included and several other sub-topics included.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is underdeveloped. It needs some work but could be a good article in the long run if several people contributed to it.

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: