User:Gracek013/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: Child displacement
I chose this because my friend is interested in being a journalist to write about child displacement and she spoke about it today.

Guiding questions: The Lead of the article was concise, but not easily understood. The organization of the Lead is mangled and confusing but it does give a few clear main topics.

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?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Guiding questions: The content is not up to date and (the newest reference being 2002) the order of the content has an unclear organization. The Lead has more information about the types of displacement and the article mainly talks about phycological effects that will happen because of the separation. There's a lot of missing information including more specific examples of when children were often separated from parents and where child displacement can often happen. The article doesn't mention anything but the effects of child displacement.

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?

Guiding questions: In my opinion the article is neutral, however, the neutrality of the article is disputed. I don't think there's a heavy bias towards a specific side, rather there's a bias to a specific aspect of the situation and not a holistic approach to everything you need to know about child displacement.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Guiding questions: One article is used for the majority of the content. For such a small article, however, there are many references even if they aren't used often. The sources are not current and many of them don't have links at all.

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?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Guiding questions: There aren't many spelling errors and it is written decently. The content is missing many major points and aspects of the topic.

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?

Guiding questions: There are multiple people that disagree with the idea that boarding school is child displacement. Also, there are external links that were modified. There aren't many active conversations, the last post was 3 years ago.

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?

Guiding questions: The article is very poorly researched, organized and written. It does have interesting information relating to the phycological effects of child displacement, but the entirety of the article is lacking. Overall, the article is poorly developed.

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?

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 — ~~~~