User:Sanchezpl/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Educational inequality in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This is one of the only relevant articles to the research topic I am pursuing. It provides cohesive and relevant information regarding the topic of Educational Inequality. Lead sections are also neatly organized - from the "History" to "Potential solutions". The tone and balance is neutral and backed up by research and sources rather than opinionated. When it comes to sources, there is a significant amount. Additionally, there are no significant missing sections or lack of pertinent information.

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.)

 Lead Section: 


 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describes the article's topic.
 * The lead includes a a brief description of most of the article's major sections.
 * The lead includes a topic that is not present in the article. It mentions "resources available for the student and their school." However, there's no section discussing this area in detain in the actual article.
 * The lead is pretty concise.

 Content: 


 * The articles content is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is up to date. Last edit was made on March 29th, 2021.
 * There is some content that is missing: further information on "resources available for the student and their school."
 * This article deals with educational equity gaps and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

 Tone and Balance: 


 * The article is from a neutral point of view.
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Viewpoints are pretty proportionally represented.
 * Minority and fringe points are accurately described. Statements are based upon independent reliable sources.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

 Sources and References: 


 * Facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. Not all are hyperlinked but they can be found if searched through Google or another search engine.
 * Sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Sources are current.
 * Sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and include historically marginalized marginalized individuals.
 * The sources provided in the article are of high quality but more can we found elsewhere.
 * Very few of the links no longer work.

 Organization and writing quality: 


 * The article is well-written: it is clear, organized and concise.
 * The article has a few grammatical errors.
 * The article is well-organized. Sections are broken down neatly.

 Images and Media: 


 * The article does not include high quality images that enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * images are well captioned.
 * Images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Images are laid out in a semi-visually appealing way.

 Talk page discussion: 


 * The article is within the scope of the WikiProject United States.
 * The article has been rated as Star-Class on the project's quality scale.
 * The article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 * Wikipedia discusses the article very similar to the way discussed in class. There's a main area of interest and within that areas, there are subtopics that help better understand the different factors surrounding that discourse. Ideas are also neatly organized and broken down.

 Overall impressions: 


 * The article's overall status is positive. It's strengths include cohesiveness and a clear breakdown of the main topic. However, it can further improve with the addition of more scholarly articles and more research in areas such as "resources available for the student and their school."
 * The article is quite well-developed. However, some of the statements and facts need more research back-up.

~ Leticia Sanchez-Perez