 | 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?
editPolice brutality by country: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Police_brutality_by_country
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
editI chose this article to evaluate because it is a topic I know and care about because it is important for being able to understand the global politics of policing. My first impression of this article was that it is very incomplete and only includes small pieces of information about specific periods of time in only a handful of countries. I am aware of far more scholarly sources, databases, and grey literature that could strengthen this article.
Evaluate the article
editLead section
editThis article is categorized as a list which could be why it lacks a more developed lead section. Prior to the list of countries with incidents of police brutality, what currently appears to be the lead section is only one brief, vague sentence: "Notable cases of police brutality have occurred in various countries." This section could be improved by citing the burgeoning literature on comparative studies of police brutality around the world or with leading databases that track and crowdsource this information on an ongoing basis.
Content
editThe content is relevant to the topic although it is a very big topic to cover for each individual country. The content is not up to date. There are only some countries with some incidents of police brutality listed, and they all cover varying moments or periods of time. The topic of police brutality relates to historical and contemporary oppression of marginalized groups around the world, so it is important when addressing Wikipedia's equity gaps. There are some countries that have links to main articles with slightly more detail, but others that don't. There are some countries with more extensive timelines of incidents of brutality (especially those in Europe, such as Italy), but most countries only have an incident or two listed, while many others have a few sentences about the national police agency (such as Ethiopia), or a single sentence (such as Uganda and Iraq). Other countries have a sub-sub-section for history, legislation, data, and specific categories of issues (such as Poland and the UK).
Tone and Balance
editThe article includes lists of incidents of police brutality and these are backed by human rights reports, news coverage, and data collection, so there is not an issue with fringe viewpoints or a persuasive tone. There is not much analysis of the incidents beyond reporting the facts.
Sources and References
editThere is far more available literature on this topic. Most sources are from mainstream news outlets and some are from human rights organizations (e.g., Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations). Most sources are not current and only cover a limited number of specific incidents on select dates. There are only a few scholarly sources out of the 386 sources cited. There are far more peer-reviewed articles as well that have been emerging in recent years that identify the systemic and global nature of police brutality.
Organization and writing quality
editThere is much room for improvement around organization under each country because it varies wildly in scope, chronology, and coverage. There is also room for more copyediting.
Images and Media
editGiven the length of the article, there are surprisingly few images and only one table, while almost all other sub-sections are divided into paragraphs of text and lists.
Talk page discussion
editThe talk page is blank and the article is rated List-class with interest to three WikiProjects.
Overall impressions
editThere is a banner at the top of the page indicating that the article has "multiple issues," including cleanup, language, specificity, and need for updates. I would agree with this assessment. There is another article linked at the top with the statement, "For a chronological guide, see List of cases of police brutality by date" and I'm not sure how these pages fit together because they both cover incidents of police brutality very incompletely. There are also crowdsourced data projects that are more regularly and rigorously collecting this data. There is a similar C-rated page on Police brutality that has spotty and incomplete coverage.