User:Lupe Mora/Evaluate an Article

Lead Section

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

Yes, the article begins with the topic and it clearly describes it.

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

Yes, it describes when the act was passed and the President who signed it into action.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?

No

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes, it mentions the origins of the act and how it has been ratified in recent years.

Content

Is the article’s content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content of the article focuses on educational policy and how it has built off of the ESEA.

Is the content up-to-date?

Some sections of the article still state that the No Child Left Behind is the latest iteration, when in reality the newest reauthorization is the Every Student Succeeds Act. So some sections definitely need to be updated.

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

The content in the article is all relevant to the topic, but some of it seems dated. Another thing to note is that the article concludes by briefly mentioning the Every Student Succeeds Act, but does not delve into details.

Tone and Balance

Is the article neutral?

Yes, the article is describing and contextualizing the ESEA without delving into a particular stance on the topic.

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

No, as previously mentioned the content is neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think that the article could add some content on how the ESEA can be linked to future legislation such as IDEA. The article lacks content pertaining to special needs education and how the ESEA approached it.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

There is no real mention of any minority viewpoint regarding the legislation.

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

No, the article does well in just relaying information without conveying a particular stance.

Sources and References

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

Yes, the majority of the sources seem to be reliable. Although some of the sources are not properly cited.

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

Yes, this was the topic that I researched for HIST 499 and by looking at the sources, I notice that there are a few that I used in my own research. For instance, the article by Maris Vinovskis comes to mind.

Are the sources current?

For the most part yes, although there are some sources that are a little older, only because they are original copies of acts, such as the ESEA and BEA.

'''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically'''

marginalized individuals where possible?

The majority of authors that are cited are American historians. I was unable to find any author that was from a marginalized group.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

The majority of sources that were used by the article are fine, but I think that there are sources that could add a new perspective into the article. For instance, the article listed below by Thomas and Brady delves into the changing role of the federal government, in regards to education. I think that the Thomas and Brady article could add a new level of depth to the article.

'''Thomas, Janet Y., and Kevin P. Brady. “The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40: Equity, Accountability, and the Evolving Federal Role in Public Education.” Review of Research in Education 29 (2005): 51–67.'''

'''Check a few links. Do they work?'''

Yes, the links work just fine.

Organizing and Writing Quality

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

Yes the information presented in the article is easy to follow and is formatted in a way that demonstrates how the legislation has changed over time.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

None that I noticed.

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

Yes, the article is broken into different parts that reflect on the original legislation and how it has been updated over time. Some categories within the article include “First 15 years”, “the 1980’s”, “from the 1990’s to the present” so the information is broken down in a cohesive manner.

Images and Media

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

There are images, but they do not present new information. Rather they only display the signing of legislation or the emblem of the educational program.

Are the images well captioned?

Yes, the images reference where they are from and they help to contextualize the images.

Do all images adhere to wikipedia’s copyright regulations?

Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, the articles are not disruptive and they help to visualize the events.

Talk Page Discussion

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

The majority of the conversations going on in the background are focused on cleaning up the contents of the article and fixing some discrepancies within the article.

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

The rating of the article is start-class. There are four WikiProjects linked to this particular article, including law,education,schools, and United States: Government.

How does the way wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we’ve talked about in class

While we may not have discussed this particular subject in class. I do think that it is connected to history. As for our broader discussions of wikipedia; I think that this article is a good example of how wikipedia presents information, without choosing sides. Instead of analyzing how successful the ESEA was, the article aims at detailing the objectives of the act without detailing their efficiency.

Overall Impressions

What is the article's overall status?

While I do think that the article could use some work, I think that it is at a good place where the major points are being hit. It just needs to be cleaned up.

What are the article’s strengths?

I think that the article does a good job of detailing the legislative details of the act. It also has a good set of sources.

How can the articles be improved?

Some of the paragraphs pertaining to the different titles of the ESEA could be cleaned up. The article could also use some updated information on the Every Student Succeeds Act.

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

I think that this article is currently underdeveloped. The content that is present is for the most part good; but outdated. This article could use some revisions/cleaning up.

Which article are you evaluating?
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because I was already familiar with the topic. So, since I was familiar with the topic I felt like I would know if relevant information was missing. Another aspect that was interesting about analyzing this topic, was seeing how it was written in a neutral stance; rather than taking a historical approach to the topic.