User:Lamp2monkey/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 to evaluate this article because it is covering an unfolding and highly politicized event—Trump's tariffs on a variety of nations, from defensive allies such as Mexico and Canada to trade rivals like China. The accuracy of information presented around the topic is extremely important in evaluating the efficacy of Trump's tariffs, which should be the basis for how we judge the success of Trump's economic policies. My preliminary impression was that the implications of Trump's tariff policies are pretty well-documented, with wide-ranging sources from a variety of credible academic institutions, and significantly less politicized than I thought.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article are very much up-to-date, with clear documentation of which goods—and to where—tariffs have been imposed—as well as what the retaliatory measures have been. Upon taking a closer look, the tone may not be very neutral, given that the article uses terms like "incorrectly insisting" and "widely characterized as a failure" when discussing Trump's trade policies. Neutral reporting can be improved through more competing perspectives and less value judgments on the policies. Moreover, while the article cites sources like the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Yale's Budget Lab to claim the tariffs will hurt American GDP and household purchasing power, it does not include any counterarguments, such as claims that tariffs protect domestic industries or encourage reshoring of manufacturing. There is also a dearth of Pro-Trump economic perspectives. Moreover, the article relies heavily on sources that are critical of Trump, from the NYTimes and the Washington Post to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Overall, while the article has strong perspectives from economists and journalists, they are relatively homogenous in how they view Trump, and the article can benefit significantly from a more diverse set of sources.