User:Sofialr3931/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: Talk:Child marriage in the United States
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because it is currently listed as a C-class article, meaning it needs some work. I also thought the topic was interested since it is on a topic that I don't know much about and would like to learn more.

Lead
Lead evaluation: Yes the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead attempt to include a brief description of the article's major sections, but more sections should be included. Towards the end, it talks about child sexual abuse and human rights violation, but when looking at the content of the article there isn't a specific section that addresses these issues.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Content evaluation: I think that the article's content is relevant to the topic for the most part, and the content is up to date, although more information could be added from 2019 to 2020. The different subsections are relevant to the topic, but many of them do not contain that much information. More content could be added in order to make the article more complete. There is content in this article that addresses equity gaps and historically underrepresented populations.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Tone and balance evaluation: The article is neutral and does not assume any information pertaining to the main topic. Many of the sections have very little information, so they more research should be made in order to add information. For example, the "Consequences" section is further divided into "Forced marriage and trafficking", "Psychological health", "Physical health", and "Education". All these sections only have a few sentences worth of information even though more can be added. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Sources and references evaluation: Not all facts are backed up. For example in the "Psychological health" section, they make the claim that "There are many effects that child marriages generally, and child abuse specifically, can have on an individual", but then go on to only talk about one effect in only a couple of sentences. There's a lot of sources and most of them are current, the oldest one I could find dates back to 2007, but most are from 2018 forward. I checked some links and many of them are from research articles, but there's also some that take you to a news article that may not be as reliable. There is a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Organization evaluation: Yes, the article is concice and clear, although it might be too simplified. There is not much information for each section. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. I do think the article is well-organized and broken down into relevant sections; they just need some work.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Images and media evaluation: There are no images. Way more images should be added. No captions.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Talk page evaluation: There's suggestions on how to reword some sentences, and how to structure it differently. Two users published in 2019 that they were going to work on and edit this article as a part of a college class. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. It is rated as a C-class article. It seems like most users agree that the article has good information, it just has to be explained better and the structure of sentences could be tweaked. We have not really talked about this topic in class, but I chose it from the anthropology section of the C-class articles because it sounded interesting.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Overall evaluation: It is a C-class article that definitely needs more information. I think the strengths are that it is organized into relevant sections and some of the sections have a good amount of information. There are also a lot of reliable sources cited. The article can be improved by adding more information and by formatting some of the sentences so that more relevant information is at the top of the paragraphs. Pictures have to be added as well. I would say the article is underdeveloped, but with some work it can definitely become a well-developed article.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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: