User:Mandobobafett/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: Preference falsification
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Given the context of my Public Economics course, I believe that the article on 'Preference Falsification' is highly relevant. However, I found that its Wiki article isn't comprehensive in its coverage of the topic, especially the adoption of this topic among the public policy community. That being said, this is a fairly new idea having its origins in academia, and I am excited about the Wiki article and its ambition of bringing this idea to the larger public community.

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
The Lead provides a simple, clear and concise introduction to the topic. It is not excessively detailed and doesn't include information that is not present in the article; however, the article is lacking in providing descriptions of its section, and in fact, the article is also lacking in the number of sections.

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?

Content evaluation
The article content is relevant to the topic; however, the article fails to cover newer developments regarding the topic, including new research such as the 'Living a Lie: Theory and Evidence on Public Preference Falsification' paper by John Duffy and Jonathan Lafky. These new developments deserve their own sections with the larger topic and should be added to provide a holistic picture of the topic. Furthermore, the topic that is covered in the article has an associated academic, namely Timur Kuran, who has conducted a wide array of research that points to or involves this idea of 'preference falsification', and therefore, should accordingly by incorporated in the article.

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 neutral and doesn't put forth biased claims. However, the lack of coverage on developments doesn't reflect the robustness that the topic has in the academic world.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the sources and references point to legitimate sources. The reflect the foundational academic literature available on the topic, but newer studies and research must be incorporated into the article. The sources and links are correctly assigned and seem to function properly.

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
The article is well written in a clear, concise manner. The article is grammatically sound and is decently well-organized. More work can be done in adding further sections to the topic.

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
The article only points to a picture of the academic who is associated with the topic. It is a well-captioned image and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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
The article is within the scope of the WikiProject Sociology effort and has an active talk page. However, this topic doesn't appear to be well covered. The article isn't rated so far.

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
The article's overall status is satisfactory. It provides a clear, concise overview of the topic and its associated author/academic. It is well structured and well-referenced. The article can be improved by incorporating newer developments regarding the topic, especially from the academic community. Furthermore, more sections can be added to the topic, specifically regarding the case studies that have been conducted based on the topic as well as the adoption of this topic in the public policy and government community. The article is underdeveloped and has the scope to be more comprehensive and robust.

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: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology