User:Orangy123/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: (Postgraduate research)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Because my course is related to research, and in addition to that, I may be interested in postgraduate research.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
As for the lead, it does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the remaining section does not include a brief description for all of the article's major sections. It also includes information that is not clearly presented in the article, and it is over detailed. There are no clear connections or smooth transitions between sentences.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Most of the content is not directly relevant to the topic and not up-to-date based on one source that is published in 2013. It is mostly side-tracked and discusses about various subjects related to postgraduate research. As a reader, it is difficult to follow along what the article is talking about. Additionally, it is missing key information that is stated in the lead section, such as qualifications. This content does not specify much about them. Lastly, it does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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
This article is not neutral. There are some times when the article explains from one's perspectives with the use of "many," "some," "more commonly now," and so on. Given those words/phrases, these viewpoints are both overrepresented and underrepresented. There are lack of citations that are unable to statistically support those viewpoints. Additionally, from my standpoint, I would say those claims are somewhat heavily biased toward a particular position. It seems like the article is trying to persuade the reader in favor of one position since it is not neutral at all.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts in the article are not backed up by secondary source of information except for one. Additionally, majority of those sources are not reliable. Some of them do not work while others are found on websites that are unreliable such as login pages. Because most of those sources are not reliable, I'd say they're not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Lastly, one source does not seem to be current based on the textbook information. It was published in 2013 whereas this article was last edited in 2019.

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
This article is not concise nor clear. It is difficult for a reader to follow along especially when there are various topics with no clear direction. The article feels very side-tracked without clearly reflecting major points of the topic. There are no spelling or grammatical errors.

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
There are no images shown in this article.

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
This article is rated as stub-class, which means it contains significant content issues and contains very basic description of the topic. It is part of a WikiProject. Behind the scenes, there are no dialogues. But a few people have posted questions related to postgraduate research. There are a lot of revisions and edits though. Lastly, the way Wikipedia discusses this topic is different because it is more based on facts excluding opinions and perspectives. But in class, we share our thoughts, feelings, and perspectives.

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
Overall, I think this article needs a lot of work and I have to admit that I think it is poorly developed. The only strength it has is a good lead section. Its introductory sentence is strong and it properly defines the topic. However, other sections need a lot more work and restructuring so there are smoother transitions for the audience to understand. Additionally, they need better reliable secondary sources in order to put in real facts based on postgraduate research.

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: