User:Mrjackmao/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Immigrant generations

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to my research on the Generation 1.5 immigrant population. It matters because this topic is very multi-faceted, yet the amount of information on the page regarding this topic was seemingly shallow.

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.)

Lead section
The lead provides a good, concise introduction to the topic by providing good context around what the topic is about. The section does mention about generations of immigrants, the topic of the page, but does not provide a roadmap of the article's major sections.

Content
The article's content is mostly relevant to the topic, although the section on factors leading to immigrant accomplishments was not the most related, but is a very interesting addition to the topic. The content is mostly up to date, as the sources cited were mostly published in the past decade or so. While the article is comprehensive to its approach on US immigrant generations, it is flagged as inequitable because it does not cover content related to non-US immigrant populations.

Tone and Balance
The article is fairly neutral, as it builds on mostly research articles. The article does seem to slightly galvanize immigrants in general, and does not really highlight any struggles that immigrants of different generations have to overcome.

Sources and References
The facts are all backed up by current reliable sources of information. The article does heavily rely on sources stemming form sociology, which is likely the best types of sources possible, but does not seem thorough enough for a topic that has many related components. The few links that were clicked on work, as most of the links point to other Wikipedia articles.

Organization and writing quality
The article is concise and clear, broken down into sizeable chunks with good categorization of subtopics. There are no grammatical errors from a preliminary glance.

Images and Media
While the article does not have any media embedded on the page, it makes sense for the topic as much of the discussion on immigrant population is on research and on people, which intrinsically makes it difficult to add graphic.

Talk page discussion
The conversations were mainly on logistics regarding immigration and perceptions of terminology. The article was rated as "start class."

Overall impressions
While the topic does provide a good broad overview of the topic regarding US immigration generations, it doesn't go too in depth into any of the points that the article brings up, such as identity or experiences. Therefore, the article is still at an underdeveloped stage.