User:Uligrac/Evaluate an Article

vWhich article are you evaluating?
Boycott

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

 * 1) I am interested in discovering how much information is collected on boycotts and their history. I am curious to understand what makes a boycott, including the framework. I would like to see how effective they are and examples of successful boycotts. I would also be curious to know the legal ramifications of boycotts. Is boycotting a constitutional right?
 * 2) My first quick impression of the article was that it was not that substantial and lacked sources. I was curious to see when the last edit was, and it seems like the last actual edit was in 2017.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

The first sentence in the lead section is quite long and does not provide a concise overview of what a boycott is. The first sentence almost tries to provide a complete overview of what boycotts are that the meaning is lost in the process. I would encourage a rewording and framing of the term boycott. The second paragraph in the lead section should be reevaluated. The writing style in the second paragraph is passive and should be written to better address the word's context. In addition, the lead does not provide a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content

The article itself lacks sources for specific statements. There are comments made in 2017 by other peer editors suggesting the need for sources. The article touches on marginalized groups like gay and lesbian individuals, but it fails to call out the equity gap. In particular, it fails to explain why “girlcotts” exist nor the inequities such terms can impose. The article talks about authors but fails to provide a direct link after mentioning names. The article touches on the legality of boycotts which is crucial to understand the consequences of performing one. The article only touches on the United Kingdom and the United States but fails to include other countries. The article lacks relevant information that weaves the literature on such topics together.

Tone and balance

The tone is neutral for the majority of it. The article occasionally talks about the state of something by using “today.” I think the word “today” encourages ambiguity and fails to attach a specific idea to a timeline. When readers come about this, their impression could vary based on the date and time they read this article. Some of the articles of “notable boycotts” are biased. There is a failure to explain why these boycotts are notable and what makes them stand out from the others. What about these protests were successful or unsuccessful. Also, it fails to talk about the underrepresented ideas of girlcotts, people of color, and LGBTQ who have partaken. When speaking on the legality of boycotts there seems like negative undertones are present. The article is subtle, persuading the reader that boycotts are bad.

Sources and references

The cited references are minimal; only six articles were used to talk on the subject for the entire article. The article lacks a diverse group of references and authors to ensure that the idea around boycotts is representative of existing literature. None of the referenced articles were written in the last ten years. The most recent publication was from 2011. I think there are better sources on boycotts that come from distinct professions outside of the business lens. The context is very business-centric and fails to incorporate other forms of boycott.

Organization and writing quality

The organization of the article is not clear. The lacking agenda in the lead section fails to explain the contents and their purpose within the organizational structure. The article is not broken down into sections that describe the major points. There are some grammatical mistakes within the article that include the misplacement of commas and punctuation marks.

Images and media

The images used within the article serve very little context to the significant components of the article. In addition, some of the licensing within the pictures used do not fully adhere to wiki’s rules. There are personal works of individuals that include crowds of public identities. The images are not displayed in a visually appealing way that draws the reader.

Talk page discussion

There seem to be authors calling or pinging other collaborators in the talk page discussion because of the interjection of personal opinion. There seem to be discussions around the inaccuracies of some historical accounts. One alarming message within the talk page is the plans for someone to input a definition on collective behavior but not reviewed or analyzed the contribution. The section should be revised in order for it to fulfill its purpose in linking boycotts to collective behavior. This article is not in any particular wikiproject.

Overall impressions

The article itself has 144 page watchers, with fifteen page views in the past thirty days. The article has few categories which help condense the materials. The article tries to position the origin of the word and history. The article could be improved by providing an agenda for the relevance of the headings and toppings. Another area of improvement would be fixing the lack of peer-reviewed articles and addressing the comments dropped by other contributors. The page itself needs a thorough review of the literature regarding the material. Without improvements, the article will fail to provide objective information to its users.

The article has the right intentions and structure, but overall it is underdeveloped. The article needs to survey existing literature to position the word boycott to be fully representative of its position in history. The article should focus on what defines a boycott and the parameters, which are particularly vague in this article.