User:PWR2Rideshare/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2020 California Proposition 22

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Proposition 22 was my case study for the research proposal stage of the course, so I thought it would be a good article to evaluate.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * While the introductory section does give a thorough description of Proposition 22, it is not concise at all. It should be much shorter.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not indicate what sections will be present in the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Yes, the lead describes the actual policies of prop 22, which are not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is relevant to prop 22.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, there have been further developments in the appeals process that are not mentioned in the article
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Again, it is missing updates about appeals -- the last information is from 2021.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article provides an objective overview.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The lead seems slightly biased towards the viewpoint that prop 22 treats rideshare workers unfairly.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all aspects of the conversation are represented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No, there are no viewpoints presented as fringe or uncommon.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * On net, the article provides a fairly objective presentation of the facts pertaining to prop 22.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the facts described in the article are thoroughly cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, proposition 22 was a single event, so it's difficult for sources to be outdated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Based on my preliminary review, it seems like a diverse spectrum of authors and viewpoints are represented across the article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * A strong number of academic sources are cited, in addition to the cited news articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links seem to work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No, the article features a number of unnecessarily long sentences as well as blocks of text featuring heavy data and statistics about wage projections.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is divided well into a number of smaller sections that focus on particular aspects of prop 22.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is a very helpful graphic detailing the vote counts of the proposition and giving a regional breakdown, but this is the only image/graphic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, the graphic is not captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no copyrighted images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The voting graphics are organized well on the page, it is visually appealing.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Much of the information about the proposition’s effects come from studies funded by either the labor groups or the companies, so there is discussion about how to frame statistics from the studies in an unbiased manner.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of the California WikiProject and the Elections and Referendums Wikiproject, and has been rated as stub-class and low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The conversation on Wikipedia focuses on how to objectively evaluate the effects of the proposition, whereas in class my focus has been on solutions to the broader issue of classifying rideshare workers.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, the article needs a lot of improvement. It is still very short, and much of the information in the article could be organized better.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article’s strengths are that it goes into lengthy detail about the proposition’s effects on wages and is well-sourced throughout. A significant number of academic sources are cited, and there are good graphics demonstrating the vote’s outcome.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article’s reception section could be expanded upon, particularly about the support that tech companies gave to the proposition. The article could also be improved by the addition of images. For example, showing advertisements from the proposition would help convey the issues at stake for the proposition and provide context.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is still fairly underdeveloped in my view. There could be more information about the campaign for the proposition, as the hundreds of millions of dollars in funding that were spent on the proposition played a huge role in its outcome and should be mentioned extensively in the article.