User:Michelle13712/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Critical pedagogy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As a student of Education and a proponent of critical thinking, this article interests me. I believe it is important to teach critical thinking skills and to evaluate the field of education through the lens of critical thinking.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The introductory sentence is clear and concise. This section does give a brief description of the topic and I found nothing that was not present in the article. This section seems concise and perhaps lacking in a few current references.

Content

I found the content to be relevant to the topic, but lacking in updating. I believe it is missing some current critiques and developments. It does not appear to deal with an equity gap topic.

Tone & Balance

This article does not seem to be entirely neutral. While the claims are not biased, they are overly represented in favor of the topic. While no fringe viewpoints appeared, I did get the feeling there was intent to persuade in favor of the topic.

Sources & References

Not all the facts were backed up by secondary sources and the sources were not all thorough. The content does not seem sufficiently current. There seems to be a diverse spectrum of authors. With some digging, I did find some more current sources that could be added. The links seem to be in working order.

Organization & Writing Quality

The article seems well written with no glaring grammar or spelling errors. It is well organized.

Images & Media

There are no images associated with this article.

Talk Page Discussion

The conversations mainly deal with the apparent bias of the article. I did not find a rating of the article as it is not part of any WikiProjects. We have not discussed this topic in class discussions.

Overall Presentation

The article's overall status seems dated and slanted. The strength of the article is in the writing style, organization, and accurate reference citations. It could be improved by updated references and the inclusion of more critical references. As a result, I find this article under-developed.