User:TeachingBox/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?

Bilingual education - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Diversity and inclusion are also enhanced by implementing and understanding multilingual and multicultural settings in today's schools. I have selected this article because it connects my interests in using two languages as paths of instruction. Immersions schools play a fundamental role in expanding knowledge, empathy, respect for other languages, and the beauty of cultural elements such as values, beliefs, art, communication, and much more. Also, understanding multilingual education can offer more opportunities to create new technological tools to support monolingual schools with bilingual/trilingual students and immersion schools.

My preliminary impression of this article was that it was dense and connected to other sources to expand the knowledge of the related topics.

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section is very concise and presents information on the overall topic of Bilingual education. The introductory sentence engages the reader to continue reading by emphasizing that bilingual education is not only in one setting; it varies based on the model. The table of contents is well-organized and describes the sections starting by mentioning the importance of bilingual education after the definition taken from ASCD. "Bilingual Education: Effective Programming for Language-Minority Students" as a reliable source. The information presented in the lead section is described in detail within the article, but no information was left out. The article also included images that support the comprehension of bilingual schools with multilingual and multicultural learners.

The content covers most of the information regarding bilingual education in the United States. However, it does not mention how bilingual education looks in other countries around the world. It mentions the dual language programs that are implemented in the country, and it describes the differences between program models. The immersion programs are up to date, but it does not mention strategies implemented in dual language scenarios or theories that support the models. Additionally, it describes the models, but it does not inform of the advantages or challenges. Also, Indigenous language revitalization immersion programs are not mentioned as a critical part of bilingual education. The article mentions the benefits of dual language education; however, it does not describe how underrepresented students do not benefit from a 10/90 model. For example, Latino students only learn 10% of English, which could also increase the gap between inequality and social injustice.

Tone and Balance: The article presents a neutral point of view, providing a meaning of bilingual education. However, the development of the article does not include what the populations that benefit from dual language education are. There is a lack of information showing how African American communities have the lowest rates of participation in these programs. I think that the article has essential information regarding bilingual education, but it does not cover all the aspects.

Sources and References: The information in the article is well supported by the sources. It would have been appropriate to involve more peer-reviewed articles based on different dual language scenarios such as homeschooling, technological tools implemented to support language learning, and more. Some of the sources are older than ten years ago. At the same time, It would be appropriate to involve how the pandemic has affected bilingual education and how students in dual language have a lack of vocabulary based on the exposure to the language and the practice at home. Some of the links that I checked from the article work correctly. Newer information could be added from recent research from Diana J. Tedick and Roy Lyster (Scaffolding Language Development in Immersion and Dual Language Classrooms)

Organization and Writing Quality: The document has been reviewed based on the number of errors. However, there are still a few grammatical errors, and some abbreviations are incorrectly punctuated.

Images and Media: The article presents three images from dual language settings. However, the middle picture could be misleading because it shows that the majority of the students are Black, and it does not happen in the same proportions in today's bilingual schools in the United States.

Talk Page Discussion: On the talk page, there is a concern that the article may not represent a "worldwide overview of the subject" Also, it was shared that the terminology is not clear, and it could mislead the readers. I also noticed that the most recent updates of (edit) were done in 2006, which demonstrates the need to involve new research in the field. The controversy section also highlights that the information presented in this article in only focused on the U.S. bilingual programs.

Overall, this article should be renamed "U.S. - Bilingual Education. Some of the strengths are the information about the programs and not seeing bilingual education as a single program. Also, the article involved various sources from neutral points of view. The article can be improved by broadening information of bilingual education as a global topic and applying cultural elements. I consider that this article needs more information to be rated completed or satisfactory.