User:SarahD12345678910/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Human rights in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've always had a strong interest in human rights in the United States, and how human rights abuses are often overlooked in the US given the US' status as a developed country. However, the country is still fraught with many instances of injustice. Because this article is outdated (from 2016) and has potential bias, I wanted to evaluate it and potentially update its content in the future.

Evaluate the article
- Yes, the article includes a concise and clear introductory sentence.

- Yes, the lead provides a brief overview of the article's major sections.

- No, the lead doesn't include any irrelevant information.

-The lead is concise.

-Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic; it includes sections on major human rights abuses.

-Yes, the article is up-to-date; it includes the US' markings on human rights from 2021, and information about current issues, such as COVID-19 and police brutality.

-The article could include more information on privacy violations and surveillance technology. In addition, it needs more information on unethical human experimentation in the US, instead of just listing examples.

-Yes, the article does deal with the equity gap; it includes information on police brutality, racial discrimination, and criminal justice issues, especially those involving black Americans.

-The article seems to have a neutral point of view, using both liberal and conservative voices to measure the US’ human rights status and violations. However, some sections may have a liberal bias.

-The section on “coverage of violations in the media” seems to be biased; it only includes a critique of the New York Times coverage of human rights abuses, claiming it to be biased, but does not include opposing viewpoints or any more explanation of coverage violations in the media.

-The liberal viewpoint seems to be overrepresented in some sections, such as the section on Guantánamo Bay, which includes several liberal viewpoints and only one statement from a Republican senator.

-No, minority or fringe viewpoints need to be flagged more often in the article.

-It seems to persuade the reader that the US has a poor record of protecting human rights.

-All the facts in the article seem to be backed up by a secondary source.

-The sources appear to be thorough.

-Many of the sources are from the last few years and several are from the last few months.

-There appears to be a variety of sources and a diverse spectrum of authors that includes historically marginalized individuals.

-Some sources could be more reliable; there should be more peer reviewed articles instead of news coverage. For example, the 2010 American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit about freedom of movement could have used a law review rather than the New York Times.

- The links work.

-The article contains some awkward and poorly written sentences.

-The article contains some grammar errors.

-The article is well-organized; it is broken down into clear sections.

-The article includes some images that enhance understanding of the topic.

-The articles are well-captioned.

-The images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.

-The images are laid out in a generally visually appealing way.

-There was a conversation in the Talk page about statements that were made without adequate sources, such as marijuana decriminalization being seen as a step of progress in decreasing the prison population.

-It’s rated C-class. It’s part of the WikiProjects: United States, Politics, Human rights, and United States/Government.

-Wikipedia’s view is more objective, and less critical than the way we’ve talked about the issue in class.

-The article covers a lot of information, but it could be improved to be less biased and more well-written.

-The article includes many different types of human rights abuses, many sources and credible information, and is gnarly well-organized.

-The article needs to be made more clear and concise for readers, and statements that are biased must be removed. Opposing views on certain issues should be covered in more depth.

-It is somewhat poorly developed, and could use some more editing.