User:SFarooq CalGPP/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. |
(Article 1) Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because it is relevant not only to the area of my fieldwork, which focuses on poverty alleviation through microfinance in Pakistan. The Article seems pretty comprehensive, but it does not have the interest free aspect of micro finance which is based on Islamic jurisprudence. It also does not provide the example of Pakistan, an addition that I think would improve the article since microfinance plays quite a role in Pakistan.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The lead section of the article clearly defines microcredit and provides a solid overview of its purpose, origins, and significance. It effectively introduces the topic for readers at different levels of interest, from those seeking a quick definition to those wanting a more detailed introduction. However, it is slightly lengthy and could be more concise without losing clarity.
Content
The article covers a wide range of relevant content, including the history of microcredit, different lending models, global examples, and the impact on poverty and gender. It presents both theoretical foundations and practical applications. That said, some of the data is outdated, some more than a decade old, and a refresh with newer studies and statistics would improve the article’s relevance. Additionally, it would be good to elaborate on the interest-free micro finance model.
Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is neutral and balanced, giving space to both proponents and critics of microcredit. It includes a range of viewpoints, from Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus to critics like Abhijit Banerjee, which helps prevent bias. The article doesn’t try to persuade readers toward a specific stance but instead presents multiple sides fairly and thoughtfully.
Sources and References
While the article includes many references, not all are current sources. Some citations are over a decade old, and a few use broken or outdated links. The article would benefit from replacing older references with more recent, peer-reviewed sources and ensuring links are functional. Inclusion of a wider range of author perspectives, especially from historically marginalized voices, would also strengthen the article.
Organization and Writing Quality
The article is well-organized into clear sections like history, principles, and regional examples. The writing is generally clear and professional, though some sections are dense and could be streamlined. There are no noticeable grammatical errors, but a minor edit for conciseness could improve flow.
Images and Media
The article includes relevant images, such as photos of Grameen Bank and women receiving microloans, which enhance understanding. Captions are informative, and the layout is visually clean. All images appear to follow Wikipedia’s copyright guidelines.
Talk Page Discussion
The talk page is not very active. The main discussion was regarding a logo that was being removed from the article.
Overall Impressions
Overall, the article is fairly well-developed and provides a solid introduction to microcredit. Its strengths lie in its comprehensive coverage and balanced tone. However, to improve, it should update data. Additionally it should add detail on the interest-free models of microcredit, since the article mostly focuses on interest-based financing.
(Article 2) Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because it is relevant to my area of focus - Pakistan. The article briefly and concisely covers the banking system of Pakistan, and is pretty short right now, and has room for improvement.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The lead section is quite minimal and only briefly states that banking in Pakistan began during British colonial rule. It does not clearly define the scope of the article or provide a summary of the key themes, such as the evolution of banking, reforms, or the role of Islamic banking. A more detailed and informative lead would help set the stage for the reader.
Content
The content is relevant and provides a good historical overview, especially of reforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It touches on issues like privatization, inefficiency, and the rise of Islamic banking. However, the article lacks depth in several areas—there is limited information about the current structure of the banking sector, financial inclusion efforts, regulation, and technology trends like mobile banking. Overall, the article feels underdeveloped and could benefit from more sections and recent updates.
Tone and Balance
The tone is mostly neutral, describing both positive reforms and past challenges like corruption and inefficiency. It does not seem to favor any particular bank or policy. However, the article leans heavily on the reforms narrative without much critical discussion of ongoing issues or counterpoints. More balanced commentary from various sources could improve this.
Sources and References
The article uses only two sources, both of which are secondary and limited in scope. One is from Himal Southasian (2002), and the other from Brecorder (2020). The sourcing is not comprehensive and lacks peer-reviewed or academic references. Additionally, some statistics—like the 2018 penetration rate—are presented without citations. The article would benefit from more diverse, current, and authoritative sources.
Organization and Writing Quality
The article is readable and largely free of grammatical errors, but it is not very well-organized. The section structure is minimal, with only a general "History" section and a brief "Islamic Banking" section. It lacks more structured subsections such as "Modern Banking," "Regulatory Framework," or "Digital Banking Trends." Improving the organization would enhance clarity and completeness.
Images and Media
There are no images included in the article, which is a missed opportunity. A visual representation—such as a timeline, photo of the State Bank, or a chart of Islamic banking growth—could enhance reader understanding and engagement.
Talk Page Discussion
The article’s talk page (if reviewed) might offer insight into why the article remains brief or underdeveloped. There may be minimal editorial activity, which could explain the lack of updates and improvements. It does not appear to be part of a major WikiProject or have much behind-the-scenes discussion.
Overall Impressions
Overall, the Banking in Pakistan article is underdeveloped and lacking in both breadth and depth. Its strengths lie in the brief historical overview and mention of Islamic banking. However, it needs a more detailed lead, updated statistics, more diverse sources, expanded content, and visual elements.