User:SkeeballChamp/sandbox

Evaluate an article[edit]
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Expert Witness
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead[edit]

 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's concise

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Somewhat
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * More information needed from other countries.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints representing other countries and it's history seem the most underrepresented
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not the last section, comparing the Expert Witness Law of the US to the UK
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * not sure
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * there are a couple of sections that need to be cleaned up grammatically
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It could flow better

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversations are centered around missing information and updating links
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article has a C-Class rating of quality and is rated of mid-importance. It is apart of the Law Wikiproject
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It seems to touch on every aspect of Expert Witness, for example; paycheck, to validity, to comparison to other countries.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is -work-in-progress
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The amount of information already had is impressive but we can still build upon it
 * How can the article be improved?
 * By going over and making sections more clear and concise and then elaborating upon smaller existing sections
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is more so poorly developed than under developed