User:Shannoh/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: Marbury v. Madison
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This is a case I have some familiarity with. It was also classified as a "Good Article," so I thought it would be a good point of reference.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Seems overly detailed; the second paragraph could have just stayed in the content.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Neutral for the most part, but has some strong assertions like "Marbury v. Madison remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but heavily focused on a few sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Small grammatical errors,
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes!

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I'm not sure - might need more information on Wiki's copyright regulations on images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page was mostly two users debating whether some sections were original research.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Good Article; in WikiProjects Law and Wiki Projects Supreme Court Cases (+ 4 more projects).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? More neutral. Less analysis on modes of constitutional interpretation and more about the facts surrounding the case and its text.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I think it is a pretty good comprehensive overview of the case.
 * What are the article's strengths? I thought the organization was great: starting with the background, addressing the three questions in Marbury, and then finishing with its legacy.
 * How can the article be improved? I think the lead section could be more concise. The second paragraph, which gives historical context, seems repetitive as background information is provided in the following section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well 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: