User:Racoon dolphin/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Physical education

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was looking through the various articles on the education wikiforum since education and education policy are interersting to me personally. I chose this article specifically because it covers a broad topic but has a relatively small amount content and some organizational issues.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like)

Overall the article has some areas for improvement. While writing on something as decentralized and generic as physical education can present a challenge towards a quality entry, there are some organizational and depth issues that could be addressed to improve the article.

Lead Section


 * The lead section's first paragraph does a decent job overall of giving a short overview of PE.
 * Not sure how relavent the gym teacher redirect is, and the link to the wikipedia article is not present
 * Also not sure if including health education taught concurrently is very accurate or common. Should have a citation

Content


 * Article mentions some stuff about equity/social justice, but it's brief and feels a bit out of place
 * Missing lots of info about international PE. Continents have many missing countries, and quality of each entry is variable. Might make more sense to create a table summarizing the PE requirements of each country and redirect to individual articles to go over more in depth if there is enough to write about.
 * The Technology section feels a bit redundant, pointing out that a PE class in modern times may use technology. It would make more sense to frame the section on how technology is changing physical education and efforts underway.
 * Should add more sections and possibly reorganize the Pedagogy section. It seems a bit wide in the topics it covers, and it would make more sense to split it up into better defined ones if possible (history, health benefits, technology, regulations, inequity/access, etc)

Tone/Balance


 * Tone is neutral
 * Seems to have a US bias as there is more info about it and some of the ideas presented in the article are reflective of a US perspective

Sources


 * Papers are cited which is good, and links seem to work.

Writing Quality


 * Writing quality and grammar feel alright, like mentioned earlier the overall organization of the article has room for improvement. Some points should be expanded upon so it feels a bit more focused.

Images


 * Images are captioned and relavent, no issues

Talk Page


 * Talk page is mostly talk about the need for many improvements, others have found many of the same issues but consensus is that the page needs major work.
 * Part of the education Wikigroup, listed as start status with low importance

Overall


 * Overall the article has the need for improvement. It has many relavent facts and decent writing, but it is missing a lot of important content and needs a lot of work on the organization. Overall the article is at an alright starting stage but needs further development.