User:Missfrizzle809/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: Tactical voting
 * I chose to evaluate this article because the topic of voting interests me, especially in regard to equity. Post-evaluation note: I didn't realize we were supposed to pick an article surrounding a topic from our course content; I thought the topic just needed to be something that we could relate to our course content.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not exactly. It briefly describes what tactical voting is and then explains how common this strategy is in differing types of elections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence does describe the article's topic in a clear and concise way. However, it does not really summarize the article's major sections. It briefly describes what tactical voting is and then explains how common this strategy is in differing types of elections. This information is not brought up again for the remainder of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I know of. I don't know much about voting phenomena, so I don't know what's missing. Perhaps it could use more specific examples.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I'm not sure.

Content evaluation
The content of the article is relevant to the topic, and it has a few examples from 2019, which make it relatively up-to-date. I wouldn't be able to say if there is content that is missing, because I don't know much about voting phenomena, so I don't know what other information is out there. Perhaps it could use more specific examples. For the most part, all of the present information seems relevant, though, depending on how in-depth Wikipedians want the article to be. I'm not sure if the article deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps or addresses topics related to topics and people that are historically underrepresented.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Not that I can detect.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not that I can detect.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does seem neutral to me; none of the claims appear to be biased or misrepresented. The article also seems factual rather than persuasive.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. They provide examples in specific elections all over the world, and cite numerous studies and theories of voting and decision-making.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I think so.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources, or they cite articles that cite scientific studies. The sources provide examples of the main topic, tactical voting, from specific elections all over the world, as well as from numerous studies and theories of voting and decision-making. For the most part, these sources are current and I think they represent a diverse array of authors. The links that I've reviewed work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It could be more clear. As someone who does not know much about voting theories, I had to reread several sentences in order to understand them.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? It has some punctuation errors (e.g. missing commas), but I don't notice any grammatical errors otherwise.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Mostly, except there is a paragraph in the introduction that I'm not sure belongs there: Bullet voting is listed under "Types of tactical voting," even though it's described as a type of "sincere voting," whereas tactical voting is a type of "insincere voting".

Organization evaluation
The writing of the article itself is just okay, in my opinion. For example, it could be more clear. As someone who does not know much about voting theories, I had to read several sentences more than once in order to understand them. I didn't notice any grammatical errors, but it does some punctuation errors (e.g. missing commas) that I would tweak.

Fortunately, most of the article does seem well-organizes, except for a paragraph in the introduction that I'm not sure belongs there: bullet voting is listed under "Types of tactical voting," even though it's described as a type of "sincere voting," whereas tactical voting is a type of "insincere voting". So, I'm not sure bullet voting actually belongs in this section. If it does, a note should be made in the article of how this applies as a type of tactical voting, given the contradiction.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? There's only one image, and its caption could be improved.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really.

Images and media evaluation
The article doesn't include images that enhance understanding of the topic. There's only one image, and its caption could be improved. I think the person who inserted this photo into the article was the owner of it, which would make it within Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I don't like the placement/size of it, though. Overall, the article doesn't really need images, but it might be more interesting with more images, such as photos from the elections being described in specific examples.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? People have brought up specific cases of tactical voting presented in the article (discussing the accuracy of these descriptions or whether they served as worthy examples), discussed contradictions between different claims/sections in the article, described why they were adding new sections/deleting old pieces of information, etc.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, WikiProject Elections and Referendums and WikiProject Politics, with a rating of C-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A.

Talk page evaluation
On the Talk page, editors have brought up specific cases of tactical voting presented in the article (discussing the accuracy of these descriptions or whether they served as worthy examples), discussed contradictions between different claims/sections in the article, described why they were adding new sections/deleting old pieces of information, etc. The article is part of two WikiProjects, WikiProject Elections and Referendums and WikiProject Politics, with a rating of C-class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I'm not sure what this question means.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article seems to offer a thorough representation of the topic with scientific and historical examples.
 * How can the article be improved? The writing of the article itself could be improved, and perhaps the organization. I might also rearrange some of the sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It seems well-developed to me.

Overall evaluation
The article seems quite solid to me, offering a thorough representation of the topic with scientific and historical examples. The writing of the article itself could be improved, and perhaps the organization. I might also rearrange some of the sections if I were to edit the article. For the most part, though, it seems well-developed to me.

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: