User:Ssoo21/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: Social savings
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I have not previously heard of social savings and wanted to learn more about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Social savings is a growth in accounting techniques in order to evaluate the historical implications of new technology on economic growth. Developed in 1950 by American economic historian and scientist Robert Fogel, explains the methodology works to estimate the cost-savings of the new technology compared with the next best alternative. The first oral presentation was at the 1960 Purdue Cliometrics meeting, and the first published version was in the Journal of economic history in 1962.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it includes 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? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The amount of social savings (SS) may be calculated as


 * SS = (PT0 − PT1)T1

where PT0 is the price per unit of the alternative technology, PT1 is the price of the technology being evaluated. T1 is the quantity processed by the technology being evaluated. This saving in resource costs may be taken to be equal to the gain in real national income. Two noted social savings applications include social savings analysis on the contribution of the railway to the 19th century economic growth and the impact of information technology to the 20th century economic growth.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes it is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I am not 100% sure if there's any missing content because this is my first time reading about the concept of social savings. However, all of the content that is presented is relevant.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Social savings was introduced and applied to the railroads in a seminal book by economic historian and scientist Robert Fogel. The social savings analysis involved using quantitative methods to imagine what the U.S. economy would have been like in 1890 if there were no railroads. In the absence of railroads, freight transportation by rivers and canals would have been only moderately more expensive along most common routes. Fogel concluded that the difference in cost (or "social savings") attributable to railroads was negligible - about 2.7% of GNP. This counterfactual history view was vastly different from views proffered by railroad historians and made a controversial name for cliometrics.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there does not seem to be any claims that are heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I feel that the viewpoints are equal and there are none that are over or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article does not seem to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it does not.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No it does not.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? This does not apply.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? This does not apply.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations currently happening behind the scenes.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a part of WikiProject Business.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not talked about this topic in class so I do not know if it would be different.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is helpful and provides valuable insight on the concept.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is concise and gives the reader a good idea of the concept relatively quickly.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding more background context may be better to give the reader a better understanding of the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is developed to understand the basics but may be a bit undeveloped for a reader who wants to know more about the concept.

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: