User:Toribaragiola/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: Science studies
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The topic was interesting to me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead sentence is "Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts"
 * The sentence is clear but I do not agree with the phrase "seeks to situate". It could just say situates and have the same meaning, making it more concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is not a brief description of each of the article's major sections but there is a table of contents that lists each of the main sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * All content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No the content is not up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Over all the article is brief. It is not a comprehensive look at science studies. The history jumps for contributor to contributor without background of the contributor. The The applications on natural and man made hazards lists only two examples of where individuals either were unaware or chose to have different beliefs other than a science explanation. I feel there are countless examples of this such as global warming/climate control. It does not talk about why science became important in Western civilization.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article does not feel completely neutral because of words in brackets that give the author's bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The phrase black swan theory in terms of (only) 19 people dying from a volcano eruptions indicates that the author feels like it was not very destructive.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No because the article is too brief considering the topic.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not feel that there is a reason to persuade with this topic. I did not feel persuaded to feel one way or another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all facts have citation/references.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are thirty difference sources ranging from peer reviewed articles, novels, and new articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most current source was published in 2012. The oldest source was published in 1992.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most links work. I did find one that did not.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is concise but does not feel clear or easy to read. It feels jumpy and would require reading other sources to fully understand the topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article is free of grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I feel the history should come before the scope of the topic. The article is brief and feels like there could be more main topics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes three images that do not enhance the understanding of the topic. One image is a picture from the sociology Wikipedia page. The other two pictures are of goats and a village which does not enhance understanding science studies.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images adhere to copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images are to the right of content.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Wikipedia users are highly critical of this article. The article is too brief. One person feels one subject should be Marxism. Another person feels that the article should be titled science and technology studies but then others discuss that science studies and science technology studies are two different topics. It used to have too many abbreviations.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's a c-class article. It is a part of five WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This topic has not been discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article does not have a good status. Wikipedia has a box on top of the page indicating the need for it to be rewritten.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is grammatical correct and concise.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs to be expanded. It is too brief.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is under developed. It needs much elaboration on the topic.

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: Talk:Science studies