User:Mets6559/Evaluate an Article
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because of the subjects relation to labor and employment law and because of the increasingly negative consequences of becoming a government whistleblower in the United States.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
The lead section is very concise but could use a little more detail to give a roadmap of the other subjects covered in the article.
Content
Some of the subsections need a little more fleshing out, for instance the State law section. Some sections also feel like they could use considerable edits, for instance the Unionization section, it provides a lot of unnecessary detail about labor law that doesn't exactly connect to whistleblowing in the context of a unionized workplace.
Tone and Balance
The article does a good job of balancing tone, I did not notice a heavy tilt in either direction.
Sources and References
About half of the links I checked were rotted. The article is overall heavily sourced but does have some stretches with no sourcing at all.
Organization and writing quality
The article is fairly concise as a whole but the organization is a little disorganized. Sections do not seem to flow for the most part.
Images and Media
The images used are only of high profile whistleblowers but I think they illustrate the topic well, they show all government whistleblowers from different countries. Perhaps a photo of a high profile private sector whistleblower could be included for some variety.
Talk page discussion
There is an extended discussion on whether or not Israeli nuclear program whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu should be included that takes place over a number of years and discussion of whether or not Linda Tripp should be included, as a few examples. The artilce is included in WikiProjects for Business, Media, and Politics
Overall impressions
I think the article is pretty good overall but could use some work smoothing it into a more cohesive article. It seems quite fragmented in some places. Its strength is that is does a good job giving a global look at the subject and not leaning too much on any given country. It seems well developed but could use some fine tuning in editing to make it read easier.