User:Macybartlett/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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]“Incarceration in the United States”
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
Incarceration in the United States:
I chose this as an area-focused article because of its wide breadth of focus on the carceral system within the United States. This article matters because it gives a large overview of incarceration and how the ideologies of punishment and/or rehabilitation have changed over the past 500 years. My preliminary impression of this article was that it touches on many important points regarding the carceral system, however its lack of people-first language dehumanizes those who are incarcerated.
Prison education:
I chose this as a sector-focused article due to its comprehensive overview of educational programs within prisons around the world. This article matters because it goes in-depth into the history, practices, and opposition surrounding education in prison. My impression of this article is that it is well written and well researched, however there are shortcomings in citing information thus possibly being considered conjecture. My area focus is on the United States, but it is helpful to understand the ways that prison education has developed in other countries.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
Incarceration in the United States:
My biggest qualm with this article initially was the inclusion of taxpayer costs within the first introductory paragraph. It felt dehumanizing to talk about monetary cost rather than the cultural and personal costs associated with incarceration. Further in the article, there is much more talk about the dangers of incarceration for specific groups of people, especially Black people of color and people with mental illness. I think this article can be improved by adding more context and perhaps reorganizing the contents in a more person-focused way.
Prison education:
This article has a plethora of information regarding education in prisons across the world. The majority of information shared in this article is well researched and cited, however there are parts of the article that are possibly conjecture and are contradictory to information shared later in the article. This article is considered a "featured article" and claims that there is not much room for improvement, however I believe I will be able to add information to solidify points already being made and bring in new information regarding specific programs and practices. Overall I think the article is good, but there is always room for improvement.