User:Mkw2015/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: Jury research
 * I choose this article to evaluate because of the recent issue brought about with the lack of Indigenous peoples who sit in jury, while there is an overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders in the criminal justice system.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence could be a little more clear rather than referring to the jury research as an "umbrella term" and making a more concise distinction between jury and jury research. The lead doesn't provide a brief description of the articles major sections, it fails to precisely cover the jurors main job of determining guilt or innocence and the research that has gone into how this is determined. The lead is very broad much like the article so it doesn't include information the article could potentially miss.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The articles content can be updated, the latest source used is dated 2013. There is a small portion of the article that mentions the stressors that can arise with jurors but doesn't include many citations in that section so I can only assume it to be the writers opinion. I think some research in Canada with the lack of Indigenous jurors playing a role in the overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders being found guilty would be a valid topic in addressing systematic racism in this category. Therefore lacking the acknowledgement of a minority group.


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

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

I do feel the article is not very neutral as the writer does mention debates within this topic, but in both arguments the writer uses as examples is negative. It mentions that jurors are incapable of comprehending evidence. For this I believe the article does position a reader to believe that jurors are incapable of making the right decision in a verdict.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The sources are not current, not all reflect the topic concisely. Three authors are used twice each for sources, so more broad research could be done on this article. There are very little links available on this article. The one available in the source category works.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is a bit difficult to read as it jumps around a bit from debates about jury research to the incapabilities of jurors. It mentions how jury research is a growing topic and there are many research methods coming about with technology but fails to mention what these technologies might be or a citation to back up this claim.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

This article does not contain any images.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

I can gather that there is more negativity brought on by this article the writer may have as it relates to this topic, and the incapability of jurors making good decisions based on the few stressors that are mentions, such as the inability to comprehend evidence or the intimidation of a court room.


 * 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 talk page has 2 comments one mentioning how terrible the article is.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The articles overall status would be that it needs to be improved and written more in a neutral way as it seems very one sided. I did appreciate the clarification on real jurors and mock jurors and they role they both play in the research. I think the article can be improved by using more up to date sources by a variety of authors. Therefore resulting int he article being underdeveloped I think it can be improved with more research and a little less one sided tone.


 * 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?

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: