User:Qwertygirl123/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: Presentence investigation report
 * This article was selected for my class's evaluation by our professor because of its relevance to current social and political issues with policing and justice, as well as its relevance to the genre of police/legal reports.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence of this page does envelop this topic nicely. However, I think that this introductory sentence could be shortened and that its language could be simplified for the sake of readability. It is a little inaccessible at the moment.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does include a brief descriptions of the article's major sections to a certain degree. I think it could do better in this area, though.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not include information not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead has a good amount of details, I think.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article's content is definitely relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content of this page is somewhat up-to-date. It has a good historical background and good information on what these reports are used for, but I think that this article's "Controversy" section could go into more detail about how these reports can be used for harm.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think that there is irrelevant content, but I do think that the implications of these articles could be expanded on in greater detail on this page.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, this article does definitely address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. That's why I think it is important that more information and nuance be added to this page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? I think that this article is neutral. As in, I do not feel led to one belief system or another by it. However, I do not think that this article fully represents the scope of all viewpoints surrounding this topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, this article does not have a strong bias in any direction.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that the viewpoints of how these reports can be misused and manipulated are underrepresented in this article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I do not think that this article makes an attempt at persuasion.

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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think that this article could use some work in terms of readability (concise, clear, and approachable language at a middle-school reading level).
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors impeded my reading of this article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think that this article is well-organized. Its current organization does not impede my reading.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, this article does not include any relevant or helpful images.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page behind the scenes of this page is fairly sparse, but shows Wikipedia contributors working together to lay out the foundations of this article. I can see clear collaboration between users.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as start-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I think that this Wikipedia article is discussed in a more detached way than we speak about it in class. The article does not deal so much with the implications of this topic as it does the reasons that these reports exist and the history of them (which are, of course, important in their own right).

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? This article is definitely a good jumping-off point. It includes valuable historical information and a strong definition. All of that is very important to nail down.
 * How can the article be improved? This article could be improved in a number of ways: simplifying diction and syntax, shortening sentences, making paragraphs into clear topics, and representing a wider scope of diverse perspectives on this topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think this article is well-developed considering the stage that it is at in writing.

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: