User:PeterStyx/Evaluate an Article

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?
  • Yes it does.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes it does.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
  • No
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • 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?
  • The content is relevant
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Could be updated more.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No content missing or 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?
  • It relates directly to heritage and history of underrepresented populations.

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?
  • Yes, the article is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no apparent claims that are heavily biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, there are not.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
  • Yes, they are.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The article has no desire to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

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?
  • The facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources, however, some of the sources are dated.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature.
• Are the sources current?
  • Some, not all.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • The sources are from multiple disciplinary approaches. Some of the more dated sources do not included historically marginalized individuals when 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.)
  • Yes, there are few. Some of the sources come from dated, non-peer-reviewed articles.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes they do. Especially the DOI's.

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?
  • It is concise, however, more on the jargon side.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The article is well-organized into sections.

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, and historical context when appropriate.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes, and cited.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Room for improvement.

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?
  • There are comments to add certain material.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This article has a C-rating. It is a part of a WikiProjects centered around sociological political science coverage on Wikipedia.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • It discusses the topic differently in a far more critical way than class.

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • It has a good base, but could use some improvement.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • Detailed in varying different subcategories including civic opportunity and critiques.
• How can the article be improved?
  • This article could be improved by being revised and update with new sources.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • It is complete and appropriately developed, however, it could use substantial updates and changes correlated to present day.

Which article are you evaluating?

Public participation (decision making)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because of topical interest and relevance to Urban Politics. Voting and public awareness is an important part of a democracy and has interested me throughout this course.

Evaluate the article

The article is well composed and appropriately organized. The article touches on key concepts and topics of public participation within a democracy and accurately describes their importance from a non-partial narrative. The article was easy to read and access. The article could use several significant updates, including source updates and recent events and examples. The sources were appropriately cited and updated by other Wiki users in the talk page. Throughout the talk page, Wiki users, appropriately voiced their concerns in an academic way to encourage growth and neutrality.