User:Mleahy64/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Politics in education

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because as a political science major, the phrase "Politics in Education" piqued my interest. When I read about Politics in Education, to me, that suggests something fishy about the nature of education being manipulated for political gain. I also was very curious about the extent to which Wikipedia would have covered this idea as it is a very topical and rather controversial idea. I was also disappointed with the brevity of the article as it could have dived in so much deeper. The article really could have gone one of two ways. By this I mean that it could have decided that it was going to be a landing page for a definition rather than digging into a deeper idea, or it could have gone the other route of providing nuanced examples of why politics in education is bad.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article does a nice job of breaking down the meaning of the phrase which we are talking about, which in terms of this particular topic is very necessary. The lead section literally breaks down the two roots from which this idea comes from and explains how it fits into that larger idea. It is not too overly detailed and gets right to the point. The article itself does a nice job defining what politics in education means and where it comes from, but it does a poor job of actually providing concrete examples or instances where it has had an impact or effect. The article rather simply lays out what it means, and why it isn't "Politics of education." Content wise, the article leaves much to be desired.

The organization, tone, and use of media were all fine. The organization, however, is likely the articles strongest asset. Minus some minor grammatical errors like having punctuation outside of a quoted phrase, the way in which the article breaks down what the term means as well as how it is thought about is very effective for getting their point across. Anyone who is coming to this article looking for a definition will be pleasantly appeased. The tone is also completely neutral.

Overall I think the article could do much much more if it really wanted to. The sources it uses are decent enough, and provide the information necessary to get the overall point across. So in that sense they are good, but the author also only used 2 sources which could indicate Though perhaps that is also better if left to the scholars... It was by no means a bad article. It did everything it needed to do; it just also did the bare minimum. I would say this article is like a 5/10. It went about its business quickly and efficiently with good use of information; it just so happens that it was also minimal information.

If I were to contribute to this article I would likely add multiple sections going into more depth about the 2 types of politics in education that the article brings up. I would touch on the various ways in which education has been politicized - for good and for bad, and try to tell a fuller story. I know that this can be rather difficult while still trying to stay neutral, but I feel as though if the author were to cover both sides of this discussion it provide more of a framework to the understanding of this idea.