User:Mahimasinha/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Article 1: Prisoner reentry

Article 2: Incarceration in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Article 1: Prisoner Reentry

I chose this article because it is related to my PE organization's main sector. It discusses the types of reentry programs currently available and different populations that need reentry services. My first impression of the article is that some sections are much more developed than others. For example, the housing and employment sections have a lot more information than the healthcare section. I also noticed that there was not a lot of explanation as to why reentry is an issue that needs to be addressed or how it came to be.

Article 2: Incarceration in the United States

I chose this article because the United States' history of mass incarceration is very relevant in the emergence of reentry as an issue. The patterns in incarceration have created prison environments that exacerbate reintegration needs when individuals are released from prison. My first impression of the article is that it is well-developed with several sections and it covers many aspects of the effects of incarceration on different populations, as well as incarceration policies and how it works. I noticed that the article spans many different topics and links to related sub-articles and topics. It has over 350+ citations listed for the article.

Evaluate the article
Article 1: Prisoner Reentry

The lead section of the article provides a concise overview of the topic. The second paragraph referring to a 2006 study does not seem relevant to the lead section and it is not addressed again in the article. There should instead be an overview of the major sections of the article such as types of reentry programs. Overall, the length and level of detail of the lead section is ideal, but more information on the sections of the article itself should be included.

The article's overall content is relevant to the topic because it details the resources that fund reentry programs, types of reentry programs, and reentry programs that are specific to certain populations. However, some sections of the article are neglected. For example, the healthcare section is significantly shorter than other sections with only one sentence. In addition, there is no subsection relating to low-income populations or communities of color, which are a main aspect of reentry programs in scholarly literature. The content also does not seem up-to-date since many studies and sources refer to the early 2000's.

The tone of the article is neutral. The writing is focused on providing information on the history of reentry programs and examples of programs that currently exist. However, the article details the ways in which reentry programs are effective, while it does not discuss ways in which they can be improved or that they are ineffective. This introduces some bias toward the efficacy of reentry programs. Another section should be added to describe limitations of these programs and improvements that are being recommended by researchers/scholars.

Each section of the article is well-cited with many examples and links to source information. The article cites many scholarly articles and studies from government organizations, which are reliable sources. However, many of the studies are from the early 2000's as mentioned before, so the sources need to be updated to reflect current literature and debates in the reentry sector. The Juvenile Re-entry section does not have many citations, so this could be strengthened with support from other sources. I also think more sources from the perspective of formerly incarcerated individuals would provide a voice to that community in the reentry space.

The article is well-organized and well-written. It is easy to follow and the sections are clear. There are few grammatical and spelling errors. However, the article does not include any images. Images could be useful in showing facts and figures surrounding reentry or images or reentry program services.

The talk page of the article is not very active. It has a few contributions every year or so, but there are no active discussions regarding the content of the page. Overall, the article's strengths include its introduction to the topic, its tone, and the way the sections have been created. It can be improved by balancing the writing for each section, updating sources and information on reentry programs, discussing current debates or limitations of reentry programs, and incorporating more diverse perspectives. I think the article has a good framework, but the content is underdeveloped.

Article 2: Incarceration in the United States

The article's lead section includes a good introductory section for someone who does not know what incarceration is. It clearly describes the topic. The lead section is very detailed and has many statistics, which makes it difficult to follow. I believe the lead section could be improved by outlining the major sections of the article and giving a more general overview of incarceration. The statistics provide a snapshot of the high levels of incarceration in the United States, but there is no general overview or introduction of the article's content.

The article's content is relevant to the topic. It covers several different aspects of incarceration such as the history, different prison populations, how it works, the effects on society, criticism, and types of incarceration systems. This provides a comprehensive overview of incarceration in our current society. The content seems up-to-date since it includes information from the recent years of 2019 and 2020. Most of the references are from the early 2000's onwards, so they seem relevant to current information. There is a short paragraph relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, but I believe this could be expanded into a full section since current literature is discussing the effects of COVID-19 on incarceration. The article addresses historically underrepresented populations such as the LGBTQ population and communities of color in its "Prison populations" section.

The tone of the article is neutral. As stated earlier, it provides many statistics and acts as a compilation of research. The article is mostly informational and it has a well-developed criticism section as well. Since so many different perspectives are presented, the article is well-balanced. However, one drawback of the informational tone of the article is that it does not present as many scholarly opinions or viewpoints on incarceration. It mostly details statistics.

All information in the article is well-cited with over 350 sources and references cited. Each section has several citations and they link to related articles. Since there is a variety of sources, they are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I think the section on prison populations could be improved by including more authors from those populations. There are several peer-reviewed articles and government documents/reports. The links in the article work.

The article is very professional, but it is difficult to follow. As stated earlier, there are several statistics, which can make it difficult to discern the main point of each section. There are few grammatical and spelling errors since the article is heavily edited. I think the article is well-organized with relevant sections that reflect main points. I think the major improvement would be clearer introductions and conclusions for each section.

The article contains many images that are well-captioned. Many of them are graphs or data figures, so I think more images depicting prison conditions would be an improvement. The images provide useful support for the written content of the article.

The article is rated as moderately developed. Many discussions in the talk page are related to students adding to the article as part of education assignments. There is also discussion in the talk page about expanding the information on the African American population with regards to mass incarceration. Most conversations are archived and it does not seem like the page is being actively edited.

Overall, this article is very well-developed with a lot of sources and evidence. It has several sections and provides an overarching view of incarceration in the United States. The article can be improved by adding more direction and clarity as to the main points of the article. It can be difficult to follow all of the statistics since sections are long and well-cited. More organization is needed in the writing. I think the article can also be improved by adding a section related to the COVID-19 pandemic.