User:Weuerle/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: Livelihood
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate this article because my organization, The Bread Project, emphasizes vocational training and high-touch follow up to contribute towards the sustainable livelihoods of it's clients.

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 lead is very general and does not defined Livelihoods in a concise manner. It fails to outline the structure of the page and often restates what it has already mentioned.

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
The content can definitely be improved. It is very limited and does not go into detail on different views on livelihood or Sustainable Livelihoods (SL). It can be expanded by providing background on the term 'livelihood' and when it became widely discussed. The content can also be updated to reflect recent work done with respect to SLs.

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
The article is neutral, which might be in light of it's relatively sparse information. The only viewpoint referenced in the page (paragraph 3, 1st sentence) was not supported with a source. The pros and cons of evaluating life and poverty with livelihoods/SLs is not discussed at all. The article attempts to convey to the reader that a SL approach to poverty alleviation/action is superior to sectorial practices.

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
Not all facts have required sources. The sources that are present are often links to entire PDF documents with a broad range of theory covered. As a whole, the majority of the 45 links listed in the References section are just listed to indicate certain authors' contributions to the topic of Livelihood literature and practice. The page does not attempt to distill or summarize these authors' findings.

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
There are a few grammatical errors, some slight plagiarism, and poor organization for this article (it is going to be quite a lot to work on - but I am up for the challenge!). The article would be reshaped best by contenting a lead that provides a simple definition for livelihood and contains a roadmap for the rest of the page. A history section on livelihood as well as subtopics, like sustainable livelihood, should follow with respective sections in the table of contents for each subtopic. The article should include pros and cons to the use of livelihoods in academic thought/poverty action and possibly conclude with summarizations of significant authors' contributions to the topic.

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
The article does not contain any images, BUT it is a spoken article. The spoken article would need to be updated to reflect any changes made.

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
The talk page is limited, too. There is some helpful clarification from the first thread, but the talk page essentially ends there. The article is not yet rated, and is considered a part of the WikiProject Sociology. It is also a member of the WikiProject Spoken Articles.

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
Overall, this article is pretty poor. I would rate it as a stub or start class. A strength is that it exists and attempts to reference various authors' contributions to the topic of livelihood. It could be greatly improved with restructuring as well as a significant amount of added content. The article is poorly developed.

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: link!