User:Maverickcontributor23/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2021 John Deere strike - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The evaluation is part of a Wiki-improvement project for a labor economics course. John Deere is headquartered in my hometown of Moline, IL and was the employer of my father for almost 40 years, so this story has a personal interest. The story matters as a labor strike is a case-study example of the breakdown in employer-employee labor relations with at least one economic principle governing the employer-employee labor relationship being violated.

My impression of the article is that it is thoughtfully and concisely written in a manner that is accurately and informing without being unnecessarily lengthy or turning into an academic article. The article outlines the main forces driving the John Deere strike and provides significant background information for the reader to understand the sequence of events leading to the strike and details of the ongoing labor-employer conflict. Grammar is not perfect, and the article has not been updated to reflect the resolution of the strike in late November 2021.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

First sentence, identifying the topic:  yes, introduces the topic of the 2021 John Deere strike.

First paragraph, provides a very brief overview: yes, after introducing the topic of the article in the first sentence, the following two sentences state when and briefly why the strike is occurring.

Lead section: no, an overview of the topic is not fully and quickly addressed in the lead section. In fact, the lead section consists only of a few sentences of introductory sentences about the strike before moving on to the second section titled “Background”. The lead section could introduce the more specific labor-employer contract disagreements such as retirement funding and also address the strike resolution that occurred on November 17th.

·      Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes; however, for an introductory sentence, it is fairly long and introduces multiple aspects of the strike that should be broken up into shorter but concise sentences.

·      Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. It states the topic, parties involved, a brief statement on the source of the conflict, and relevant dates.

·      Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No / NA

·      Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. It is not a well-written introduction, but it is not a laboriously over-detailed introduction.

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

·      Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes

·      Is the content up-to-date? Partially; it is a current event article but is not complete by being updated with strike resolution, leading the reader to believe the strike is still ongoing

·      Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing:  more about management stances on the strike issues that led to the walkout, as well as an updated article about the strike resolution on November 18th.

·      Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? NA

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

·      Is the article neutral? yes

·      Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No; however, the article presents the striking workers’ demands through representation by the UAW but does not provide any insight on the management or employer stance for resisting worker demands. For example, what are the projected costs of meeting UAW labor contract demands?

·      Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? yes

·      Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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

·      Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes; this is a current events topic so all sources will be news and media outlets, not academic sources.

·      Are the sources current? Yes

·      Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes; who knows about the “historically marginalized” individuals?!

·      Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

·      Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

·      Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few to resolve, but not bad; part of my identified areas may be based on my preferences for writing style more than a grammatically incorrect writing style… TBD

·      Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It’s OK – I’d recommend section breakdown more along the lines of background / previous strikes, current strike information / updates, then resolution.

Images and Media

·      Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes for the one included.

·      Are images well-captioned? yes

·      Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes

·      Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? It is ok; one graphic on the right side in a sidebar data box. No image or media is included in the content of the main article.

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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

·      How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is not rated, but it is included as an article of interest for 7 related WikiProjects.

·      How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It does not or it is not. It supports the basic premise of Labor Economics that labor is a resource or input in a production discussion and should be viewed economically accordingly. The topic of the strike is a case study for when the incentive and compensation structure between the firm and the employees is misaligned due to competing demands for utility maximization.

Overall impressions

··      What are the article's strengths? Neutrally quickly informative about a current event topic.

·      How can the article be improved? Complete the article, and reorganize the article

·      How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped. Not a poorly written article and the background and current news (through Nov. 2) is accurately represented, but the article lacks the strike resolution portion which is significant to the event progression.