User:Olivia.bakken/Evaluate an Article

Homelessness in Germany

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

Name of article: Homelessness in Germany
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: There is little to no information about the homeless situation in Germany on this page. With a simple search, I was able to find a ton of information that was not listed including some statistics that the current article says don't exist. It is currently a major issue that isn't being addressed. In addition, it is listed as a Stub so I can contribute to making it a more well-rounded source of information.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? No.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no current content that addresses homelessness present day in Germany.

Is the article neutral? Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? No.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, Wiki states that there was a failed verification for a least one of the sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not really, some of the sources have more to do with German history than it's social issues.
Are the sources current? Most current is 2015.
Check a few links. Do they work? 3/5 References worked.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is only one section with one paragraph for this stub, so the article is very small and concise. Does not contain a lot of information.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Spelling is OK.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I mean they have one section that is relevant, but it's the only section for the entire article. I think they could add more sections that are relevant and preventive measures that may be taking place as well to reduce homelessness.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images are listed.
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Issues regarding homeless, especially in youth.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is not rated on either the quality or importance scale. However, it is part of WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Urban Studies and Planning.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class, we went over Stub articles containing little to no information. I was surprised after encountering this one, how little these pages can contain, especially this one.

What is the article's overall status? It was last updated in October, 2019.
What are the article's strengths? It has none, it is pretty much a blank canvas.
How can the article be improved? In so many ways.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is poorly developed. Despite having one paragraph, it does not give enough information to the reader. You really don't learn much from this article which is unfortunate.

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 — ~~~~