User:Nathaniel Tolles/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: Cut, Cap and Balance Act
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Very relevant to governmental budget management like we discussed in class today.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? First sentence does not fully describe the intention of the bill.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Fairly concise

Lead evaluation
Introductory sentence of the Lead is concise but mentions the topic but does not describe the content of intent of the bill. The lead lacks a description of the major sections, but has a table of content that lists them. The lead does not contain information not present in the article, and is fairly concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. Because the topic is a bill from 9 years ago, it does not need to be up to date, right? Body of article is concise; nothing that seems like it should not be there. Unsure if it sufficiently describes the content of the bill.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Article seems neutral. Harry Reid quote seems a bit out of place though. Discusses view of republicans that did not support the bill, but does not have quotes from those supporting it. Does not seem to try to persuade.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Numbers from the Provisions sections are not cited. Sources are current for the time period. Links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
Article is concise and clear. Leaves commas off after "however". Sections break down major points. 3 sections of provisions clear.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
No images used.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Comment from Harry Reid brought into question for its hyperbole and the fact that it represents the views of just one Senator. Seems reasonable to say it is hyperbolic, but the views of the Majority Leader at the time seem fair game. Part of Taxation, Conservatism, United States Public Policy, and United States/Government/Public Policy WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Generally C-Class and low to mid importance. Strengths: clear and concise. Could use more of the economic and political context? Somewhat underdeveloped.

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: