User:Shan2434/Evaluate an Article

Evaluating Content

-

Which article are you evaluating?
Miscarriage of justice

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am very interested in wrongful convictions and was curious to see what was written about it.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

- Yes, the lead section's first sentence adequately and succinctly introduces the topic.

- The article only discusses and links out to the causes but does not mention anything about the consequences, implications, or compensation sections that are included in the article. It could also mention that it will break down the issue by country.

- No, everything included in the lead is discussed in the article

- The lead is both concise and overly detailed simultaneously. It lacks flow and is hard to follow. Editing is needed to improve the quality but the length is accurate.

Content- The article does a great job addressing many of the causes of wrongful convictions but I would like to see more information on notable cases, especially since many have been very recent and frequent. Additionally, I would like to see more about forensic evidence and its contribution to wrongful convictions as well.

- Yes, the article has data from up to 2022 but it could be updated further to reflect data from this year, especially in sections where the data is older.

- I think that individual cases and more updated and relevant statistics from organizations like the Innocence Project should be included. I am also personally not a fan of the "by country" section but I can understand why it is there. It seems that more time should be dedicated elsewhere however instead of this section, which is rather long.

- This is not as applicable to my article but issues within races are prevalent and could be discussed. It does do a nice job highlighting the different countries.

Tone and Balance

- The article is neutral, but this is not necessarily a controversial issue rather than an existing concept.

- No bias claims found.

- Not necessarily viewpoints that are underrepresented but as mentioned above more content that is missing.

- Not a minority viewpoint to report on

- No persuasion in the article

Sources and References

- Yes, all facts are backed up by reliable sources. There are a total of 71 sources cited.

- Sources are all thorough and are taken from credible organizations such as the Innocence Project and the Department of Justice

- Yes, the sources are all predominantly under ten years old. Some updated statistics could be found to improve the article.

- Hard to tell with sources authors being historically marginalized or not. There are multiple sources written by women. The difficulty comes from the overwhelming amount of sources coming from data from large organizations who receive the credit.

- Updated statistics would help. Apart from that, sources could be incorporated to discuss several popular/milestone cases in the wrongful conviction world that are not mentioned in the article.

- The links do work.

Organization and writing quality

- The content of the article is well written I just think that it could be reorganized and added to to make it flow better.

- The grammar and spelling in the article are correct.

- Not very well organized, somewhat sporadic. Missing information that could help readers understand the scope and importance of the issue by adding more statistics about the harm that it causes and attaching the harm to real people in the past.

Images and media

- There are 3 images in the article but more would help readers to gain a better understanding.

- The few images are well-captioned.

- All images comply with Wikipedia's regulations

- The images are not very well laid out and do not contribute much to the article.

Talk page discussion

- There is very limited conversation on the talk page. One segment is about a sentence being "too vague". Another is about a percentage used being too low, and the last correcting a minor detail that the US had not existed yet during the Salem Witch Trials.

- The article is a C-class article and is featured in the Crime, Law, Law Enforcement, and Human Rights WikiProjects.

- We haven't discussed this topic in class.

Overall Impressions

- I think the article is a solid starting point that needs to be built upon and added to.

- The strength of the article is that the base is solid. Mostly everything that will need to be covered is there already on a surface level.

- The article needs the popular cases and more relevant statistics to be improved. The article also needs to be reorganized to improve flow.

- The article is underdeveloped with high potential to be very good.