User:Lukashoule/sandbox

Lukashoule (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)= Article Evaluation =


 * 1) Everything I had read in the article appeared to be relevant to the topic of The Crack Epidemic. Taking about its origins, right through to its communal effects. There was not much that distracted me, except the photo of DC Mayor Marion Barry. I understand it is trying to show pervasiveness of the problem but, it was not relevant in the whole story of the epidemic in my opinion.
 * No, the article is relatively up to date. There is a number of recent references to popular culture that was influenced by this epidemic. I personally would talk about how this problem ended, if it has. I get this refers to a specific point in history but what has been done since then to end this besides skewed prison sentencing? I also am curious about the effects in other countries. Did other countries have this epidemic, what did they do to solve it? Is it still going on for them? How long did it last? etc. I also wonder why it is simply the "Crack Epidemic" is it not "Crack - Cocaine?"
 * 1) Overall, the article mentions, very robustly, the effects on minority (specifically African American) communities in this country. However, some of the sections -- particularly the "social effects" part have no citations to work that is referenced in the text. In addition, the "Impact by Region" section only referenced one study to talk about such a broad topic. They should likely reference more than one study.
 * 2) The article is fairly neutral, it shows the epidemic not only in terms of the facts but in terms of its now understood effects on the black community. The article authors did not shy away from explaining how low socioeconomic class, and ease of money making helped this drug ravage minority communities. That may present some bias but, it is true bias.
 * 3) I would say that all views are well represented. The article makes sure to talk about the hard, sentencing laws put in as one way to combat the epidemic as well as other, softer measures with the same goal.
 * 4) In clicking on the first 5 or so citations, they all opened to a page. The source referenced was either linking to separate Wikipedia pages about a specific word or place, or they had articles that talked about the Crack Epidemic.
 * 5) With the exception of the "Social Effects" section, it seems all facts are linked to some sort of resource. Upon perusing these sources, the majority  are from reliable resources ie. Harvard, the CIA, federal policies, and major news papers. These sources generally present facts and information as objectively as possible. I do not see much indication of bias.
 * 6) There are a number of conversations going on, some even about problems at I found like the title of the article and asking about the effects of the epidemic across the world. People are claiming there was/ is some plagiarism. Some people claims the article is not correct in its understandings of the origins of crack and the epidemic therein
 * 7) The article is rated consistently "C - class" on the three councils it is apart of. C rating means that the article is immense and has lots of information but, some information may be inaccurate. It needs to be revised but, it would suffice for a reader looking for some surface information. It is apart of Wiki Drug Policy, Policy US, and United States.
 * 8) In class, we really look for potential sources of bias and correctness of information. Wikipedia seems to care that information presented be concise and non - controversial. It allows for some articles to be flawed and sometimes inaccurate. We try to avoid that entirely in our class. Wikipedia is looking for better in my opinion, not perfect. Though, like us, it believes in the power of a number of voices and opinions are required to tell a greater story.