User:Erikabucb/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Politics in Education Politics in education
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because there are a lot of issues with how the article is written.

Guiding questions:

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, Lead does not touch upon any of article's major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, because the rest of the article does not talk about the theories presented in the first sentence.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed and should be more concise.

Guiding questions:

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? No, sources, sources used range from 2002-2003. There is a section called Further Reading with three sources linked. The date of the sources are 1986, 1987, and 1991.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing, available content is slightly relevant.

Guiding questions:

Is the article neutral? Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, it appears the article believes that there is a significant difference between "Politics in Education" and "Politics and Education".
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Almost all article sections are underrepresented. The author will make a point and then not expound upon it.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Guiding questions:

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, some facts in the article do not have sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, the sources are confusing and aimless.
Are the sources current? No, sources are from the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s.
Check a few links. Do they work? For most sources, they are not exactly links. Mostly citations for books and papers.

Guiding questions:

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No, the article needs a lot of work. It is not concise just because it is short. The article warrants more information.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no spelling errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is no organization whatsoever to the article.

Guiding questions:

Guiding questions:

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? People are giving critical suggestions in an effort to bring more relevant sources.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated as Stub-Class, within the scope of WikiProject Science. Yes, the article needs additional citations for verification. It is not a good article.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? While my class has talked about politics and education, we have not really discussed politics in education.

Guiding questions:

What is the article's overall status? It is weak.
What are the article's strengths? It is interesting.
How can the article be improved? It warrants more information. It also warrants good sources.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Article is poorly developed.

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes ~~~~