User:SpaceWax/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Deviancy amplification spiral

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I found the concept to be interesting. It is also a good example of how presentation of information by mass media, such as news broadcasts, can affect the general population's attitudes and emotions.

Evaluate the article

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The lead does have an introductory sentence that is concise, but is is missing a key point about the topic. According to the article the deviancy amplification spiral is not just about the increase in crime but also about the increased perception of crime, whether real or fake, spurred by its visibility in the news.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead does not have any description of the article's major sections.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

There is no information in the lead that is not also present in the article


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is very concise; it is only one sentence long


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

All the content in the article is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

The content appears up-to-date, however it could do with a greater number of more recent sources.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

It satisfies there bare minimum, but the concept could be made clearer with some more examples. There is no extraneous content


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

It does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. I don't think it addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations, although I can see how they might be affected by this phenomenon. Minority populations are often blamed for rise in crime so the spiral could amplify prejudice throughout the population.


 * Is the article neutral?

The article is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no heavily biased claims.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There aren't any overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

There isn't any mention of minority viewpoints and the one counterpoint to the concept is labeled as such.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

There is no attempt at persuasion.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

The main body of the article lacks sources in the majority of its claims. The second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the process section have no references attached despite making the majority of the claims about the deviancy amplification spiral.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

There are very few sources; the article could do with more literature to back up it's claims. Most provide examples to explain the concept and only one appears to describe the concept directly.


 * Are the sources current?

The most current source is from 2015, so no.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Two of the sources were written by women. It is difficult to find specific information about the authors, but those who I can find information about are all white.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Even a quick preliminary search on Google Scholar offers thousands of peer-reviewed articles to do with the topic.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links work, although crime wave just leads to the article for crime instead of the concept of a crime wave.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It is difficult to read due to the rambling nature of most sentences. There are several sentences that need to be made more clear or even broken into multiple sentences.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I didn't notice any specific grammatical errors, the writing was just clunky.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

It is pretty much just the process section. The article could do with some separation and elaboration on the examples and the counterpoint.

Images and Media

There are no images present in the article.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are conversations about adding more examples and about the potential removal of an article link.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated as a Start-class with no assessment on the importance scale. It is part of the WikiProject for Sociology.


 * What is the article's overall status?

It is definitely a good beginning that can be strengthened. It currently has the "needs additional citations" banner attached to it.


 * What are the article's strengths?

It is unbiased and includes many links to other Wikipedia articles. The writers do appear to have a good understanding of the topic.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article needs more examples, more references, and a general clean-up on its sentence structure.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is underdeveloped. It is short and doesn't offer much information.