User:Noname5280/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]I have chosen to evaluate the Miranda v. Arizona article because I am familiar with the Supreme Court decision. The decision concluded that individuals must be informed by law enforcement of their constitutional rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment, before they are questioned for a crime. This decision has made a lasting impact on law enforcement history, because it affirmed that suspected criminals are still worthy of their constitutional rights. I personally believe that this was an important decision because it aligns with the Due Process Clause.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The article has a decent lead section. The introductory sentence includes the key points about the court decision, such as its name and what it enforces. The first supporting paragraph explains how the court ruling was implemented to protect suspected criminals from self-incriminating themselves when they are unaware of their right to remain silent. The second paragraph then explains how this decision affected law enforcement by encouraging Miranda warnings. However, the third paragraph loses clarity as it explains another court decision following Miranda v. Arizona. I believe this section should be relocated in the document.
Content
The content of the article is historically accurate and up to date. I believe the article could be rearranged for better readability. Information about Miranda's background and other events following the decision are scattered throughout the article and causes some confusion.
Tone and Balance
The article follows a neutral tone and holds no biases. It includes both arguments from the lawyers representing Miranda and the state of Arizona. It also highlights how the decision has benefited suspected criminals, while also upstirring discontent with the American public for being "soft on crime".
Sources and References
There are many sources listed for this article and they relate to the topic. The references section should be revised because the sources are formatted in two different ways. Additionally, many sources were retrieved from websites, rather than peer-reviewed articles. Some of these websites are also considered to have certain political leanings. I believe that this can reduce the credibility of the content.
Organization and Writing Quality
As previously stated, I believe the article can be improved with better organization. Additionally, a few sentences can be revised to improve the writing quality. Overall, the article has been written well and the effort and detail used is evident.
Images and Media
The images included adhere to Wikipedia's copywrite regulations because they are pictures of public documents. They appear to be well captioned. More images could be used to enhance the sections beyond the Lead and the Supreme Court Decision sections. For example, the article could include a picture of Miranda, as many readers may be curious to what he looked like.
Talk Page and Discussion
Other users have utilized the talk page to make similar revising suggestions. There are also many questions asking for clarification. We haven't discussed Miranda v. Arizona in class, but we have partially talked about due process.
Overall Impressions
The article is considered a B-status article. This means that it is a good article but can still be improved. According to Wikipedia: content assessment, a B-status article may still lack information for a serious reader. The author's can improve this by first revising stylistic choices and then including more detailed information about Miranda's background and the crime that was committed.