User:Sybear/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 article are you evaluating?

Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I was watching the film Training Day, and was curious about the historical accuracy of the film. The events of the movie are loosely related to the LAPD's CRASH unit, which had multiple corruption and scandals within the 1980s and 1990s, before being dissolved in 2000.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The lead section is very concise and contains the historical relevance of the unit, from its formation, giving the location it served, and its overall purpose. It briefly goes over the Rampart Scandal, which was one of the leading factors into its dissolution due to corruption.

Content

The content of the article has only a few sections. I attribute this both to the lack of public information due to its significance as an undercover unit, as well as the time period it operated within, which was before the advent of the digital era. Additionally, due to the corruption involved by several CRASH units, it goes into a brief summary of two major incidents, one being Operation Hammer, and the other being the Rampart Scandal. As there are a few films that have been based upon the unit, the popular culture sections addresses this and provides some insight into correlations and film basis.

Tone and Balance

The overall tone and balance are written quite neutrally. The authors present facts rather than their own opinions regarding the issues within the LAPD's corruption scandals of the time. While readers may feel certain emotions regarding the LAPD after reading this article, there is no inherent bias towards or against the organization as a whole. This represents one instance of controversy and explains the role of the unit during its time.

Sources and References

There are a few "official" sources, which are cited from the LAPD's official website, which likely has some bias and lack of neutrality. Most of the references are news articles, interviews, or secondary sources. This is likely directly related to the covert nature of the unit, and the unwillingness of official sources to reveal or provide discussions related to the scandals. Most of the links do work, however some are not updated and/or do not redirect to the proper location.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well-written and is easy to read and digest. The sections and major topics are presented well, however more information would be better. There are no grammatical mistakes present.

Images and Media

There is only one image, which is the patch of the LAPD crash division. It is properly referenced and cited, adhering to the copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion

The talk page is interesting, as there are many discussion on whether the article maintains a neutral point of view, and if it should be removed as it is close to being a stub. The majority opinion is that there are many missing points at the time (2005-2007), due to the lack of articles relating to the major points. However, these articles have since been created and help to explain further into the corruption scandals.

Overall Impressions

I believe the article is quite short and could undergo revision to be more descriptive. However, the overall importance is still valid. The two notable sections of the Rampart Scandal and Operation Hammer dive deeper into operations of the CRASH unit. This page serves as a general point of information with summaries, but is not as in-depth as the related articles. It seems that the lack of references or sources is a barrier to expansion and further work into cultivating the article.