User:Mkuulei6/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Liberal education

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The Liberal Education Wikipedia page is an important resource for understanding the depths of liberal education, and I think the page offers a neutral information source for curious readers (like myself). I chose this article because I wanted to learn more about liberal education and found this article very insightful. The site did a good job at providing an overview of liberal education’s history, principles, and contemporary debates.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The Wikipedia site on Liberal Education article is thorough and mostly complete.

The lead section does a clear job of defining the topic and providing a general overview of what is to come. It includes an introductory sentence that describes the topic and a brief description of the major sections within the text. On top of this, the lead does not include any information that is not further assessed. Overall, I think the lead is effective and introduces the topic well.

The content within the article covers relevant aspects of liberal education, including some of its history, principles, practices, and modern debates. I think the content is up-to-date, but I feel some sections like the ‘Relationship with professional education' could benefit from some additional recent developments in more modern education. I do not think there is much ‘missing content’, but I think a further discussion of liberal education’s relevance to historically underrepresented populations could enhance the article. The article manages to address Wikidpedia’s equity gaps by covering topics relevant to education equity and access.

As far as tone and balance go, I think the article manages to maintain a neutral tone overall. It presents a variety of perspectives on liberal education fairly, and with such a controversial topic this can be hard to do. There do not seem to be any apparent claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position. Views and controversies are described fairly, without any over or under representation of a specific viewpoint. Some of the ‘minority’ viewpoints were accurately described as such and I do think the article does not attempt to persuade the reader, simply educate.

When it comes to the article’s sources and references, most facts are thoroughly backed up by what seems to be reliable secondary sources. The sources do appear to be thorough, reflecting a broad range of literature on the topic. I do think some of the citations were a bit outdated and some sections like the lead could benefit from more recent citations. On top of this, I think diversifying the authors on historically marginalized perspectives could also benefit the article to be more well rounded.

The article has great organization and writing quality with no significant grammatical or spelling errors. The organization is easy to follow and reflects the major points of the topic well. The article does not have any media, though I am not sure what could be added to benefit the material that is already there.

The Talk Page Discussion on the article’s page appear to focus on improving content and addressing specific concerns that have been raised by editors. The article is rated and is likely part of relevant WikiProjects related to education or philosophy. I do think the way in which Wikidpedia discussed liberal education may differ from classroom discussions in terms of breadth, depth, and neutrality.

Overall, the article appears to be in good standing. It has strong comprehensive coverage, neutrality, and organization. I think the article could improve with more recent citation, greater emphasis on marginalized perspectives and perhaps some media coverage that relates to the material. I think the completeness of the article is extremely high, and has room for small developments here and there.