User:MCJones20/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.


 * Cross-race effect: (Cross-race effect)
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is related to a mechanism through which minorities, especially black people in America, are charged and jailed for crimes they did not commit: specifically an over reliance on eyewitness testimony.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Introductory sentence for the lead is concise, but doesn't explain the full cross-race effect in that it describes "familiar" without indicating what familiar means in this context (of familiar race). The lead also focuses a lot on a particular study, and doesn't include a brief description of all the articles findings. I think that parts of the lead better fit under empirical findings rather than the lead. The lead also includes errors and a statement that attempts to emphasize the effect, but shows a national (U.S. bias) and is ultimately unnecesary ("All asians look the same?"). The lead could definitely be more concise for the reasons mentioned above: rather than discussing the general topic and origin of the term, it focuses on a specific study.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content seems up to date and relaevant to the topic, however, it doesn't seem to pull from many sources, and has the opposite problem from the lead. There are times when more detail or information is necessary. The article definitely mentions cross race identification bias and the effect that this has on minorities in the justice system, however, I have seen some places in the articles and the talk pages where bias impedes dealing with the equity gap on wikipedia.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is more neutral, however, there are some areas of improvement, as this article shows a bias towards the U.S. (the all asians look alike? quote). There doesn't appear to be any persuasion either in the article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links I have checked all seem to work. However, and Wikipedia has already made a note of this, the article relies too much on primary sources. Another issue that I found is access: because a lot of the sources are primary research studies, people need to pay for or have institutional access to see the full article, which is problematic. It appears the references for this article was largely provided by college students who may have not considered this effect. A lot of the research also comes from the same journal, which is problematic as well, especially since whole sections of the page rely on one paper. The sources are are somewhat current, with the majority being from the 2000's and 2010's, and the oldest reference being from 1914. The sources on this topic can use a lot of work unfortunately.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There are some grammatical and spelling errors, but they are small and easily fixed. It is organized, the biggest issue being a seeming lack of information. More evaluation is needed to see if that is the result of a lack of information, or not enough details. The organization could be better, but I can't pinpoint exactly how.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media used in the article, unfortunately.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
This article is a part of the Psychology and Sociology Wikiprojects, and was rated C-Class by both. There are conversations going on (though they are older) bring up some of the problems I mentioned. Too many primary sources and copyediting is needed. While the contributor no longer exists, someone mentioned that despite being an "expert" the article was confusing for them and required reorganizing. Students probably aren't looked fondly upon, as apparently multiple copyright infingements were found so a user had to reverse the articles to before the students made any changes. There are also some comments that are a little irrelevant.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
I would say the article is still underdeveloped or poorly developed. While the article gives a good general overview of the cross race effect, the way it is written and the sources used could still use some work.

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:Talk:Cross-race effect