User:XandraBryan/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is the article Social science

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Somewhat Tone and Balance Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Probably, that is very subjective - none of the sources are news coverage or random websites, though. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I caught Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but the topic is not one where understanding would be deepened with images. Are images well-captioned? Yes Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Whether or not psychiatry is a social science, if social science is a standalone topic, etc. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class, level 3 vital article. It is part of several WikiProjects How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is a broader overview of social science in general rather than a focus on sociology or political sociology Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? It's a fine article? What does status mean here? What are the article's strengths? It gives a thorough overview of social science How can the article be improved? Break up paragraphs more for improved readability. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-developed.