User:SHuynh1/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:
 * Legal history (Legal history)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because I am currently attend a Business Law class at Babson College. Reading over the history of law might provide some insights that I might have missed before, plus it seems very interesting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead is very strong. The first sentence condenses a majority of the information in the article into one sentence that explains the main topic of the article. It contains a strong brief description of the major sections but doesn't lose the audience in the description. It doesn't bring up any information that isn't present in the article thus not including information where the rest of the article doesn't go in-depth with. It doesn't go over detailed with the paragraph being pretty concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content in this article is very relevant to the topic as it contains the history of law, which is the topic of the article. It is up-to-date for the kind of article it is trying to be. It is about the history of law, so it shouldn't contain very up-to-date passages, however, it was updated on September 20th of 2020 and I am writing this at October 9th of 2020, so it has been updated very recently. There doesn't seem to be any content missing or not belonging in the passage. It doesn't address "historically underrepresented populations or topics" as it is about the history of law. The topic is very represented as the history of law is very important and many people have to understand it for their careers.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral, it doesn't show any biases when talking about the different law systems in different periods of time. It talks about European law more than the other law, but that is most likely due to how many different system the European Countries went through as it progressed throughout history. It doesn't try to persuade the reader, it just provides extra links/articles to each category for readers to read more if they would like.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
On the quick look through the sources, it seems like the sources are backed by a reliable source of information and it still holds up to the current climate on the topic. All of sources are current and the sources contain elements from several different authors and not just one singular author. Each of the author have a history on the topic and looks like they know what they are talking about. The links I have checked are working and are also accurate.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article flows very nicely and doesn't contain any grammatical or spelling error. It is broken down very nicely as each subtopic can easily be found in the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article contains three photos, one of which is the topic image. The images contain a strong caption as each describes what the image is about in a small description. However, I found the image to be more fun-facts instead of adding to the article. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulation and are very appealing, however, again, they feel more like fun-facts.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The current conversation is on how to improve some of the subtopics by adding more information where it is needed. It is currently at a start class and is in the cope of being in a WikiProject. It is overall not bad, but could contain a bit more conversation.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I think the article is currently relatively average. It contains strong points but is still missing talking points in certain areas. For improving the article, I would recommend having more contribution by more people. The more people who contributes useful information, the better the article will be. It's almost complete, it is missing points where it should have some, but from what I have seen, it seems like a younger article. Which means it has potential to grow.

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: