User:Ningjiang216/sandbox

Article evaluation
Civic journalism is an article that I decided to evaluate. I believe that the "Overview" may be biased; the information stated in the first paragraph is not cited and the writing seems as if it is an opinion rather than provable, citable facts. In particular, there are multiple "calls to action" and unprovable statements.

On the other hand, the "definition" of civic journalism was well written because it provided many reputable sources and conveyed multiple expert opinions in an unbiased manner. However, the overall section may be excessive, as the large majority of the segment is solely dedicated to two individuals. More specifically, the author includes a quote from Merritt nine lines long. It was confusing and overrepresented. Yet, other parts of the article, specifically "Related concepts," can be elaborated on; I think the author can combine "Related concepts" and "Political journalism" into one section, since the content between both sections are similar.

The sources I have checked did coincide with what was discussed in the article. However, the article itself displayed its sources in a way that was unnecessarily confusing. I think it would be best to restructure the article and to revise the importance of certain segments in relation to others.

Possible articles to work on
Civic education in the United States

—separate into better subcategories in the article: origins/history, today, demographics, etc

—providing a clear definition of what civic education means

—re-structure the article to make it more readable

Voter apathy

—important article, but not well-written; could improve on its legibility

—further discuss the role of civic technology and how it relates to voter apathy

—expand on "possible solutions"