User:Neuscholar/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article on political polarization.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've chosen to evaluate this article because political polarization is becoming increasingly relevant in the United States as the two major political parties in government are finding less and less common ground.

Evaluate the article
In the lead section, the first sentence gives a clear definition on exactly what political polarization is. It does not bring up unnecessary information that the rest of the article does not refer to, and is very concise. The lead does not include mention of some of the major sections in the article, as it does not refer to the consequences of political polarization.

The content is relevant and up to date, referencing studies done in the last couple of years that have measured trends in political polarization. The content presents numerous views on the causes and effects of political polarization, allowing the reader to gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic. The global perspective section gives some examples as to what increasing polarization can look like in nations, and helps the viewer to understand what political polarization looks like in the real world.

The tone is balanced and neutral for the vast majority of the article, presenting numerous viewpoints and not arguing for any particular one. For example, the article lists the negative and positive outcomes that result from increasing political polarization. The only place I would say that it could be seen the article is arguing for a certain position would be the last sentence under the benefits of polarization paragraph, as this sentence says polarization can be risky while still under the benefits section. I do think this is an important sentence to include in the article, but the placement of this sentence in the benefits section could make it seem that the article is making an argument.

From taking a quick look through the source list, the sources seem to be reliable pieces such as journals and research articles published by universities. Some of these might be a little outdated, as I saw an article from 1966 as well as one from 1976. However, they could also be useful for understanding the way political polarization has evolved over time.

The organization of this article helps to guide the reader towards what they are looking for; for example, there's a section on causes and then subheadings on the different causes, making it easy for the reader to navigate towards the causes section as a whole or towards a specific cause. The writing quality is clear and well-written, making the article easily understandable. I did notice one spelling error when reading through the article in which the benefits was used instead of benefit (in the second to last sentence of the first paragraph under the global perspectives section.

There's only one image on this article, which shows the trends in political parties in the United States House of Representatives and how polarized they were. This is a good visual representation of political polarization over time, and I believe this article helps the viewer to see the divides more clearly. I do think including more images could be helpful, such as images representing polarization in other nations.

There is not too much on the talk page, but there are suggestions to include more real world examples as well as a section that discusses ways to reverse political polarization. This article is rated to be of mid-importance under sociology and politics WikiProjects, and was part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported assignment for a student's course.

Overall, I believe this is a strong, well-organized article that uses reputable sources to provide information on the topic of political polarization. The article is well-developed, but I believe the suggestions mentioned in the talk page could be helpful to provide more information on the topic.