User:Westonfr/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:Agency (psychology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I

Lead

 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence offers a clear and concise description of the article and is offers a nice overview of what the article will discuss in its content. I do think though that the introduction might be a tad bit too long as it starts to go into subplots that could later be discussed in the content.

Content

 * 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?

Content evaluation
I feel like the content is up to date but could maybe be a bit longer to express different views from other sources in regard to this topic. I don't feel like there is content that doesn't belong, but that there's more that could be added to the content to help make the different main ideas better to understand, and also a variety of subplots to continue to support the main points of the article. The content does seem relevant.

Tone and Balance

 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
I feel like the article is fairly neutral in describing the points mentioned in the content. It offers different viewpoints from over 30 different secondary sources in this short article, and there doesn't seem to be too much focus on any one particular viewpoint, but remains balanced and looks over the different viewpoints fairly. Instead of reporting on whatever the author believed was true, they remained neutral. There didn't seem like there was a lot of ideas coming from refuting viewpoints, but I did not feel I was being overly persuaded to swing in favor of what the author had wrote.

Sources and References

 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Many of the sources seem to work when clicking on the ones offered in the references list. Many of the sources are within the last 20 years or so, with the more recent being from 2017, which to me seems like the sources are current and are reliable.

Organization

 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article seems very organized. They break down the different viewpoints into their own subgroups within the different sections in the content. The article is written well I think and is easy to understand. The grammar is clear and done well, and I don't see any spelling errors either.

Images and Media

 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are currently no images in the article.

Checking the talk page

 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
Currently there is no activity in the talk page.

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I feel like it maybe a little underdeveloped. Not that the article is poorly written nor is it a poor article, but I feel like more could be contributed to the article itself to provide a more broader outlook of the topic at hand. Although there are a lot of sources for a short article like this, I feel like with more research, the topic could be expanded, and included different viewpoints from other individuals who might refute certain aspects in the content, which allows for a more neutral standpoint and a much broader scope of how this topic is perceived among different sources.

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: