User:PoorMuttski/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

I am evaluating the page for the Presentence Investigation Report. This is part of my class curriculum, but it could also be a very important page to someone going through the court system. The introductory sentence of the article summarizes the topic quickly. It is short and dense and introduces several concepts that are expounded upon, later in the document. It does not include any information that is not covered elsewhere, however. It does not include a summary of the sections, or any kind of explanation of the shape of the article to follow. The paragraph is somewhat awkward to read, with the last sentence being the most difficult.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content of the page is all relevant to the topic. It covers a large portion of the issue, and the topics flow into one another in a logical way. I am not familiar with the PSIR, so I can't gauge how complete this article is. It is missing a lot of citations, however. almost every paragraph is marked with a "citation needed" tag. The article doesn't sound biased, and the facts appear sound. Citation would help improve its authority, however. The issue of a PSIR is likely very important to minorities and the poor, who are more likely to be assigned a public defender, when they are accused of a crime. They might need quality information to navigate a legal system that is slanted against them.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article maintains a neutral tone, throughout. it uses neutral language and makes no implications as to assumed intentions of any of the actors it describes. The potential defendant is referred to as "The defendant", rather than calling them a criminal, although they are sometimes referred to as an "offender". It does not rely on overly technical language or complicated sentence structures that could be difficult for the average person to understand. Overall, it does not take any viewpoint, and simply describes the document and explain the steps that lead to its creation.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are a lot of un-sourced assertions. The article describes a document created by a legal procedure, but gives no information on the regulations or laws governing that procedure. The actual format of the PSIR varies by jurisdiction, but not even a small sampling of these different documents are linked to as sources. Furthermore, there is no information as to which element described in the article is relevant to which jurisdiction. It is possible that some step or requirement is only used in certain areas, and not others. The sources that are cited are current, going back only as far as 2001. Most of the links are active, while others will require some searching. The sources are either written by scholars or by lawyers. There is no apparent input from probation officers or defendants.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is well structured. it generally lays out information in a logical way, starting with an over view and then moving through the different stages of creating a PSIR. the flow of information within the subtopics is rougher. Some subtopics certainly feel as if they were written by different people, at different times. They lack cohesion, although they do not repeat information. The article has few grammatical or spelling errors. Overall, the article would benefit from a review by a single editor. It functions decently, as it is, however.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images or media in this article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

the talk page primarily has entries relating to things that were changed or added. It is part of the Wikiproject Law group. it is rated as Start-class in quality, and it has a low priority.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the page still has an amateurish feel that typifies early Wikipedia. It needs more attention to improve its utility and presentation. Right now, it works well as an introduction to the genre of Presentence Investigation Reports. It contains considerable information about the process of creating a PSIR, and links to the section of Federal law that sets requirements of these documents. It is unbiased, even though it only takes in information from a narrow range of sources.

Unfortunately, little attention is spent on how the document is used, which will be much more important to someone facing sentencing. The article mentions that the PSIR can influence post-sentencing judgements such as probation, but does not explain how this works or how influential it is. The article could definitely benefit from the input of an actual probation officer to fill in details and add perspective on the importance of certain information over others. It would also benefit greatly from a full body edit for clarity, conciseness, and uniformity of tone. It still needs a considerable amount of work.


 * 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?

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: