User:An anonymous entity/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because sociology is a subject I am familiar with, and frankly I could not think of anything else to search... Sociology is one of my favorite topics, which makes sense coming from an ANSO major. Sociology matters because it examines the facets of our world that lie just beneath the surface. My preliminary impression was that the article was a well rounded overview of the discipline.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The Lead Section is well done, the first sentence is an easily understood introduction to the topic which would be understood by people with no previous knowledge to the subject. The lead does include brief introductions of the article's main sections in a concise manner, and does not mention topics which are not covered in the full article.
Content
The content is relevant, unbiased. Though, most importantly the article does address topics of equity and representing minority viewpoints regarding historically underrepresented topics and peoples.
Tone and Balance
Overall the article does read neutral. Sociological analysis tends to require a certain neutrality, which the article does well. Although, in some of the sections on early sociologists which detail their contributions to the discipline some of the word choice seems to reflect slight biases. Though that could just be to reflect how their respective theories were perceived.
Sources and References
There is a "citation needed" stamp after a sentence in the History section of the article, as well as in the etymology section.
Organization and Writing Quality
The article is well organized and follows a coherent analysis of the development of sociology, from its origins and founders, the different sub disciplines, schools of thought, factors considered "theoretical problems" with the discipline, research methods, and where sociology overlaps with different disciplines and social sciences.
Images and Media
The article provides many well captioned images that help to contextualize the people and topics referenced. Images are formatted in an appealing way, and correspond with their respective sections of the article.
Talk Page Discussion
The article is rated C-Class, which means that it cites reliable sources, it has higher quality structure and style than a start-class article, but that it does not quite qualify as a b-class article. It is listed in several wikiprojects. The discussion is closed on the talk page, with a note not to modify it. Though there are records of comments that the article "clearly does not meet article 2 of the GA criteria" and that "there is quite a lot of uncited material" Talk:Sociology
Overall Impressions
The article was removed from the "good articles" list because it does not meet the necessary criteria. The article is eligible for renomination if the proper edits are made though. I thought that the article was okay for a broad overview of the subject, but I would not use it for any scholarly writing because of how it is rated and discussed in the talk page. I would agree that it needs more complete citations and to be revised accordingly.