User:Ylianamartinez/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.


 * Sociology: (Sociology)
 * Sociology is my major and it draws my attention in the study of human behavior. From the social class to patterns humans use in society.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

There is a solid introductory sentence that is very broad about what is Sociology. It then leads into giving a descriptive background of the different social patterns and relationships, diving into how theories are brought up. This definitely goes into detail with explaining focuses like "social classes, religion, deviance, etc." I don't think it's overly detailed.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article is relevant to the topic in the way of just really defining sociology and explain traditions. The content is up-to-date because sociology is still a major field that simply occurs in society. No content missing because I believe all that is written correlates with what the topic needs to be described as. The article does reference other theory's which allows the reader to dive into that topic and read the history of that, why is goes hand and hand with sociology.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is neutral. No claims whatsoever towards any position, but the reader can take a step back to think about the different theories as to why might someone think or feel like that. I don't necessarily think any information is over or under presented, the topic is really spilled out there to teach. Also does not attempt to persuade the reader, at least in my opinion.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * All the facts in the article are backed up with multiple sources that allow the reader to click and dive into that source to seek why it goes with sociology. This helps frame the topic with more background information as well. The sources date back up to 2016 - now, but still are very current in today's society. The sources are diverse coming from different sociologist and people who feel strongly about this topic. The links do work, the ones I clicked were showing up as abstracts others were sort of basic and just gave the name of a text.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * 100% I believe the article is well-written in the sense of it being very clear and easy to grasp. When reading the whole text you feel very educated about the various methods of sociology, gaining a broad perspective of it. The sections are broke down into sections such as origins, theoretical traditions, problems, research methodology and subfields in which are broke down into smaller sections of that topic.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There are several images that are implied to be made out to be the father of sociology or different sociologists as well as statues. The captions for the images are named then highlighted with a hyperlink to click and learn more. Each photo is laid out in their own section when broken down.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * Conversations are being spoken of the issues in society whether it pertains to social classes or economical statuses. How certain theories from way back then occur til today, that's why the founders of sociology were still being brought up. I would say the article is rated to be good overall since there are many sources to back up the topic. In class we've mainly discussed topics of the environment side of sociology whereas this was mainly a sum of it all.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article has good strengths as in deeply describing multiple factors that go into sociology, for weakness I really can't pin point where anything can be improved. Maybe shorten subfields. This article is well-developed.


 * 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?

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: