User:MollyMoxenFree/Evaluate an Article

Plagiarism
I chose the article on plagiarism to review because it was a topic discussed at length in class.

Lead
The lead comes across as a well-written summary of what plagiarism is and what it isn't. The section includes information about the history of plagiarism, the moral objections to it, as well as possible ramifications of committing the offense. However, there is a feeling of contradiction where the article discusses legal ramifications. It claims that plagiarism is not illegal while also stating that incarceration is a potential penalty. The article also does not clarify the locality of the laws for which it vaguely refers.

Content
The article content titles are all applicable to the conversation of plagiarism. Seeing as how plagiarisms is not an idea that ebbs and flows with time, the information feels mostly relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
This article does not relay a neutral tone. In the opening dialogue, it is implied that in some countries plagiarism is not a breach of ethics, while it is viewed as worthy of criminal punishment in others. And then most of the article is written from the assumed perspective of the United States' legal system and ethical code, without it being noted. This creates a heavily biased attitude that suggests the United States is the standard bearer. This minimizes the legal systems and moral codes of the countries that have a different view of the topic.

There is also an over-representation of plagiarism in the section headed Academia, and an under-representation in the section of Journalism. While the problem may be more evident in academic situations, to reduce the discussion regarding journalism to two sentences, minimizes it and pretends that it doesn't exist.

Sources and References
I found that most of the factual details provided do come with reliable citations. Many of the sources come from articles or literature published within the past 20 years. However, there are also notable older resources that reference historical significance and use of the word, plagiarism.

Organization
As a reader, I felt that much of the content was repetitive and used for filler, while there were other viewpoints that were left out. Some of the sentence structures were difficult to understand and had to be reread a few times to grasp their meaning.

Images and Media
To the discussion of plagiarism, I felt the images were sufficient, and they are all part of the Wikimedia Commons repository.

Checking the talk page
This article is rated as B-class and is listed as a level 4-vital article in Philosophy. This article is part of WikiProjects in both Philosophy and Literature, and is rated as having mid-importance in both subjects.

Most of the discussion on the talk page leans towards the topic of self-plagiarism, and whether to include it. There is also talk about sources within the article. The discussions differ from those in my online class in that these discussions are more about the theological understanding of what is and isn't plagiarism, while the discussion in my class has leaned more towards how to avoid being a plagiarist.

Overall impressions
My overall impression of the article is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen looking for credit. I view the strengths in the article to be its outline and lead. They are a solid foundation for the topic. However, I feel the individual subtopics get hijacked by unnecessary fluff, while there are significant parts that are left out. I view this as a well-designed article that fluctuates between being well-developed, poorly developed, and underdeveloped.