User:Novy B L/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.


 * 504 Sit-in: 504 Sit-in
 * I recently watched the documentary Crip Camp which is about the sit-in, and then I attended a few of the Crip Camp webinars. I am disabled and the 504 plans I've gotten through this law have been very helpful for me.

Lead

 * The lead has a good introductory sentence, but it is quite short and not entirely descriptive. This makes it concise, but I think more information should be added. It does not include a description of the article's major sections, and it also includes some information not in the article. It needs to be expanded to more accurately reflect the contents of the article as a whole, and sections need to be added to the rest of the article. It also only has one source, which is not ideal for a lead.

Content

 * The content is all relevant to the topic, although more could certainly be added. It's up-to-date, but of course this happened in the 1970s so there is not much currently happening (although current disability legislation may be relevant.) I would have to research more about various historical disability legislation to know if anything is missing, although the Crip Camp movie and webinars should probably be added as more than just a single line, since many current leaders in the disability rights movement were involved in production. It certainly deals with an equity gap -- disabled people are a large minority in the country (estimated at 16.8%, which is considerable at almost one in five.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is definitely biased in favor of the protestors, and I should also note here that I share that bias. It is also biased towards the social model of disability, although it does accurately note that that is currently the most popular model of disability among disabled activists (although by no means the only position, a fact which the article does not discuss.) It relies heavily on the same few sources. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in any specific direction, except perhaps that the protests were positive and necessary.

Sources and References

 * The article pulls heavily from just a few sources. More should be added to reflect the protests more accurately -- or, since there are 21 listed sources, more information should be gathered from many more of the listed sources. Sources are indeed current, since many are in response to the 2020 film Crip Camp. Links work. The sources are from many different authors, and many of them are disabled, which is good for this article. One source is cited twice and the redundant source should be removed.

Organization

 * The article is decently well written. There are a number of spelling or grammar errors -- none particularly glaring, but language could certainly be tightened up and improved in many areas. It is not easy to read for someone without a base knowledge in disability rights, I assume -- there are some parts of it that require knowledge of activism in the area. More explanation and expansion is needed. The article is organized chronologically, which is a good choice. However, I would include larger sections on the ramifications of the protests and the protests and laws that preceded and followed them.

Images and Media

 * There are no images and no media.

Checking the talk page

 * There is only one post on the talk page. No discussion is happening; it is a simple message detailing the changes made -- a modified link. The article has a C rating and is a part of the disability WikiProject.

Overall impressions

 * The article is C class and this seems correct to me. It is well organized and accurate, as far as I can tell. However, it is short, biased, and needs considerable elaboration. The introduction should also be expanded. Media, especially photographs, should be included. It is underdeveloped and needs to pull from a greater variety of sources as well as emphasize a greater variety of viewpoints both within and outside of the protesters.