User:Olive4ever/Evaluate an Article

User:Olive4ever/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: Discipline (Academia)
 * Why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article as I was interested in the history of different disciplinary tactics and how it intersects with different areas of life.

Lead
The introduction gives a good overview of the overall topic of the actual article. Someone who would want a general overview would be able to skim this section and glean enough information to give a good cocktail party account. The mention of the broad aeas that the topic give a well rounded description yet still leaves room for more discovery.

Content
The content is a little sparse but that might be due to lack of content more than anything else. What is included is very relevant to Disciplines as a whole, and even the more sparse sections are devoted to the information necessary. Everything is up to date as the subsections for this topic are not always changing. The contributors of this article had little to go on but they were able to produce the best with what they did have.

Tone and Balance
The article only explains discipline in an academic setting. Most of the language is active, explanatory and neutral. None of the contributors take a particular stance in any of the subsections, save the tone of an outside party explaining certain aspects of a situation. In this way, it is a very informative article without skewing the reader's opinions. Some viewpoints were underrepresented but that was due to lack of content that the contributors faced.

Sources and References
The sources and references within this article are sparse at best. While there are sources, there are not nearly enough for the academic and authoritative tone that the author takes on. With the only a small amount main sources listed in the article, there are few secondary sources related to the topic. Each of these sources does connect to the original topic of an academic discipline, such as the sources for Michael Foucault and the University of Paris. The links also point the reader to additional articles and sources, which work correctly.

Organization
The organization of the article is a little haphazard, and it doesn't seem to tie together very much. The sections included seem only the result of some general knowledge about the topic. The shift between the history, interactions and bibliometric studies seems a little stunted and unfinished. If the contributors had included a little more of an explanation about how the sections relate to one another, that could improve the organization. It would also tie together the overall theme throughout the section organization.

Images and Media
There are no images included in the article. Although I understand this may have been due to a lack of images that were appropriate, there could have been a bit more effort in this area.

Checking the talk page
The article has a few edits and comments from past contributors. Most of the major comments are about past comments I have made, such as the organization of the sections and the sourcing. There have also been comments about fake words being taken out of the article. That surprised me, as I did not see any words like that while reading. The article is rated as Start-class on the quality scale; which makes sense due to the generality of the topic. It is also given a low rating of importance but that can also be because of the previous reason.

Overall impressions
The article is a good start and has all the base parts for a well rounded article. If there could be some clean up on the previous critiques, it would stand as a very informative article and a good example of what Wikipedia articles should be.

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: