User:MiguelMercado5/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

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?
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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
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

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?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
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?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?
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

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?

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?
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

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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which articles are you evaluating?

Human trafficking in the United States U Visa

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The first article is my area and the second is the my sector. I had chosen these article because I am looking into anti-trafficking in California so I wanted to use the general information offered regarding trafficking in the United States. I chose U Visas because of its importance to helping victims of trafficking receive the aid they need from government entities Cal-Fresh, Medi-Cal etc...

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

They both do offer introduction sections the first article highlights overall action that has taken place and the second article offers a brief summary of what the visa actually is and who qualifies. Neither article offer a brief explanation of the major contents of the what is to come they introductions are quite broad. The first article does actually include information that is not in the body it discusses in 2018 how Trump had signed the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, but the second article includes the information used in the introduction.

Content

For both articles the content is relevant to the topic because the first article explains how trafficking has evolved over time and then transitions to policies created and organizations combating the issue. The second article is less dense and is straightforward in explaining the visa and requirements needed to qualify. The first article seems to be sort of up to date it was last updated in 2022 while the second article has not been updated since 2019. The first article could use more information of how victims could reach out to help and what should be the recommend next steps. As for the second article it should highlight the benefits of having the visa and how long the process is. The first article does discuss how underrepresented population's such as migrants of color make up a large percentage of victims who are trafficked. The second article does not really explain the importance of the population that is affected, there is a section of statistics but are not separated into race/ethnicity.

Tone & Balance

Both articles are neutral but the sensitivity of the topic makes the reader feel sympathy due to it discussing victims that have had their rights stripped from them and forced into situation no one would like to be in. The articles do not overrepresent or underrepresent viewpoints as it discusses laws and policies and uses definitions from reputable sources. The minority viewpoint is not relevant to these articles.

Sources & References

The sources in both articles meet all the qualifications which are reliable and there are enough to back all claims.

Organization

The first article could be revised a little more to be a little more clear, however the second article just lacks more information and could use a reorganization with more subsections. There are no grammatical errors in either of the wiki articles. As stated the second article could be reorganized with more subsections to offer more insight.

Images & Media

There are only 3 images within the first article and they offer very little insight about issue because the images used seemed forced in there expect the first one because it is a committee hearing about a policies regarding trafficking. The second article uses no images so I can no analyze that it could of included an image of the actual visa to represent how it looks.

Talk Page Discussion

The talk page for the first article used to have a lot of contributions but slowed downed since 2015, but has had great discourse as for the second article there are only two discussions posted so not much is said for that one.

Overall Impressions

The first articles strength is the amount of information that is presented and the seconds article strength is how concise it is. The weaknesses of the articles are each others strength the first article could be organized to flow more naturally, and the second article could include more overall information regarding its current status is the real world and not just presenting statistics. The first article is well-developed just needs few changes, while the second article is underdeveloped and could have more subsections.