User:Markmcde/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: Development-supported agriculture
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- This article is related to the Grand Challenge of Sustainability my Hero Council looks to address with our podcast. The article appeared moderately developed to allow me to evaluate a number of the aspects of the article but with opportunity for further expansion. The warning banner that more citations were needed suggested the article might provide some examples of shortcomings that I could learn from.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The introductory sentence for the lead is concise but does not detail what makes development-supported agriculture unique from other agricultural programs or policies. The lead begins to use the abbreviation DSA without introducing it implicitly through parentheses or explicitly with a phrase (e.g. "development-supported agriculture, or DSA"). Most importantly, the lead focuses on information that is not present through the rest of the article. A significant part of the lead also discusses a "related term," agricultural urbanism, rather than the topic term. The remainder of the lead focuses on the work of a few scholars in the development of the concept, information that might be better suited to a History or Background section.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The article's content is mostly relevant, but leaves gaps in the description of the topic. The Background section contradicts information given in the lead about the origin of the term and thinking behind the development-supported agriculture (DSA) concept: the lead says it arose surrounding a project known as Southlands, whereas the Background section says the term was used "to describe the Harvest project." The section comparing community-supported agriculture (CSA) with DSA does not expand upon the differences between the two movements sufficiently to merit its own section; rather, it reads more like information that would show how the DSA strategy originated. The "Five points of DSA" section provides a clear description of the idea. The examples provided in the Examples section and throughout the article are out of date, the most recent being from 2011. One example has its current status listed "as of July 2008" but does not provide information about whether the project was successfully completed. These examples also provide the majority of the text of the article, greatly outweighing presentation or discussion of the concept itself.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article is not neutral, overwhelmingly giving a positive representation of DSA. In many places, the tone and content present the impression of an argumentative essay written to encourage the expansion of DSA programs. Nowhere in the article are potential drawbacks, complications, or difficulties associated with DSA considered or mentioned. Rather, DSA and the public response to it is lauded with phrases such as "would benefit all involved" and "overwhelmingly positive." In one case, an editor has used all-capital letters to emphasize the program's potential for "LOCAL" producers. Thus, the entire article presents only a favorable image of DSA in an argumentative and persuasive, rather than neutral, tone.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The Background, DSA and CSA, and Five Points of DSA sections cite no sources, even though they provide many specific facts that would require a citation. Examples are thoroughly cited. Although the examples themselves (and thus their websites) are dated, the links work and are typically the government descriptions of the projects an editor refers to. While these sources might be helpful to provide information about the goals of the project, description of the results and potential impact of the changes would require other reliable secondary sources that the article lacks. Links to several of the other sources, however, did not work. Only one scholarly article was cited, and an editor appears to have relied upon an article on a local news website for significant pieces of information.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The writing is generally concise and straightforward. However, there are mechanical errors in several places. The sections are well structured in principle, but need to contain more detailed and relevant content, especially regarding the Background and DSA and CSA sections as mentioned above. A section for "Limitations" or "Drawbacks" would also be appropriate to balance the article's tone.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The article does not include images to illustrate the examples, even though some of the sources provide useful diagrams and conceptual sketches. Moreover, images from many of the government sources cited would likely be available for use without violating copyright.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, the article is underdeveloped. The article provides many relevant examples of the new implementation of the DSA concept that were ongoing at the time of editing. However, these need to be updated to their current status, and more recent examples provided. Most importantly, the article needs to be provided with more content providing a general description of the what DSA entails and its potential drawbacks. The tone throughout should be modified to give the factual, measured presentation appropriate for a Wikipedia article.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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 — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: