User:Seanapplegate/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: Out-of-school learning
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article as it lines up somewhat with the discussion of my PE org, Pandemic Professors, which deals in the facilitation of online educational support in the time of COVID-19. The Out-of-school learning article gives insight to existing forms of educational support that are less contingent on the virtual medium for supporting students.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead gives a general overview of the topic's scope, and does so all in one sentence. It mostly references the topic in relation to a specific event in history. As a whole, the Lead does not include a description of the article's major sections, nor does it include information that is present or addressed in the article. The Lead is also concise, but also is arguably not giving enough info for readers for what is to come in the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Because the article's Lead places the topic within a historical context, the rest of the article seems to be conveying mostly the relevant history of the topic, which is also limited. It almost becomes misleading, as there is little in the way of conveying this relevant history, and mostly talks about the topic as a concept. The content seems to be missing a section that details the history of out of school education (background). It also does little to place the concept within specific topics, such as what country or part of the world that the topic applies to. I believe that this article would benefit from additional content that is more up-to-date, and might directly reference the COVID-19 pandemic. This would do well in addressing topics surrounding equity gaps and underrepresented populations, but on a basic level, there is no reference made to the topic in relation to historically underrepresented topics.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article definitely occupies a neutral position. Because there are little to no claims made that are biased towards specific positions on issues, there is mostly a focus placed on results and implementation of the topic. In these sections, the sentiment portrayed mostly shows the topic in a positive light, and does little to address any possible drawbacks of the topic. The claim made about quality of programs dictating outcomes is the only claim that might require more substantial evidence and backing, but there are not many attempts made to persuade the reader. There is no clear argument being made in the article.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All of the facts in the article seem to reference reliable secondary sources, but they also seem to be non-exhaustive. Also, some of the linked sources are not current, or have error messages when trying to access them. For what is provided, there seems to be diversity amongst the authorship, but mostly coming from major outlets of information. This includes a UCLA piece, a BBC News piece, and an educational researcher.


 * 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

The article is easy to read with language that is not complex. There are no noticeable grammatical/spelling errors. There are not enough sections for me to say that it is well-organized, as it also does not seem that much is given to the flow of the article.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no existing images or other forms of media within the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are no conversations going on behind the scenes for this topic. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Education. As for the article's ratings, it is of start-class quality, and low-importance.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

It seems that this article has not been added to nor thought about for quite some time, as the Talk page suggests that it was a featured article candidate in January 2008. It was never promoted from that status. The article's strengths lie in it being a concise and easy to read piece. Aside from that, the article would benefit from a recent update that would contextualize the topic for a more appropriate and relevant reading. Adding on to the topic's importance would achieve a higher sense of relevance, so real world examples of out-of-school education within the content would make for a more holistic read. Also, improvements could be made for the article's use of existing literature. There is only one reference to a scholarly article, and use of more scholarly sources could make for a more well-informed article. As a result, there is a sense that the article is greatly underdeveloped.


 * 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?

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: