User:PrismaticJelly/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: 1926 Passaic textile strike (1926 Passaic textile strike)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Concise, if somewhat lacking in information.

Lead evaluation
While the lead is concise, it may be too concise, as it leaves out an overview of the major sections of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? - The article has not been edited since 2014. It could likely use an update.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Some acronyms are used without specification of what they stand for.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - It discusses the rights of the working class and their struggle for proper treatment in work environments.

Content evaluation
The content is substantial, but has not been edited in a while. Additionally, while dealing with rights of the working class, it fails to elaborate on the socio-politcal context for the strikes, instead touching mainly on the economic side.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? - There is some biased language present.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - The article uses descriptors such as “miserable” to describe workers’ wages. This language is not indicative of an unbiased stance.
 * 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? - The article appears to attempt to sway the reader in favor of the protestors.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article, especially in the first half, favors the side of the protestors. This can be seen in its use of non-objective language.

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? - Many of the citations feature the same source. The article would benefit from diversification of sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - The links are mostly functional, though there seem to be a few hyperlinks with no existing article as a destination.

Sources and references evaluation
More variety should be present in the cited works. The links that direct to empty wikipedia pages should be removed.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Although organized, the article’s section headers appear to lack proper capitalization.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are some issues with capitalization and punctuation, particularly in section titles and the “Facilities Affected” section.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The article is broken down into acceptable segments.

Organization evaluation
The material is organized in a logical manner, however the lead does not touch upon this organization in full, nor does this organization use proper title case.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - The images provide helpful visual context.
 * Are images well-captioned? - The images are suitably captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Images are missing copyright information.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images, while providing useful visual aid, do not all have proper copyright information. This should be rectified immediately.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - It appears the last discussions about the article took place in 2011. The latest edit was in 2014.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - The article is rated C-class and is part of 3 WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is underutilized, especially considering that the last edit was in 2014, while the last talk page update was in 2011.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? - The article is not marked as a stub or otherwise flagged.
 * What are the article's strengths? - The article has a large quantity of information considering the amount of contributions made to it.
 * How can the article be improved? - The article could be improved with a wider variety of sources and a less biased perspective on the information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - The article could do with refining and further research.

Overall evaluation
The article is interesting and covers a lesser-known communist work strike. However, it has a problem with biased language, poorly credited images, and lack of diversity in citations. The talk page also fails to properly document the suggested implementations of various edits.

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: