User:Username25954/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A 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. 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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. 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? Tone and Balance Wikipedia 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. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A 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. 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections. 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? Images and Media 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? Talk page discussion The 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. 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? Overall impressions 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? Examples of good feedback A 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. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

User pageWhich article are you evaluating?

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Topics related to crime and law have always been of interest to me. Since I was younger, I have always talked to my mother, a general litigation lawyer, about her work and her experiences with litigating. Although I found civil law complex, it did not interest me as much as criminal prosecutions and the many federal laws in place that combat crime, specifically organized crime. When searching for articles to edit, I used the citation hunt to generate the article Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which needed several citations. Since it is rated as a C-class article with mid-importance, I found it a good fit for our evaluation of a Wikipedia article assignment.

Evaluate the article

As mentioned, Wikipedia gave the article Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act a C-class rating. This means that while the article is built up, parts of the article are lacking or entirely missing key components such as citations, relevant information, etc. As I worked to identify my overall impressions of the article, the Wikipedia-assigned C-class status became evident, with at least five identified texts that were missing citations. The article makes mention of its application to criminal and Civil suits; however, only has an independent section for its civil application. This independent section lacks detailed information and seemingly gives a vague overview of an individual's right to file a civil suit against a "racketeer" for damage from said racketeering activities. It is important to note that under Application of RICO laws, there again is a very limited Civil provisions section, which offers one sentence on a provision pertaining to the commencement of RICO civil suits. When reading into the article, it is apparent that the few paragraphs under Summary are not, in fact, related to the summary and instead offer information solely on the criminal application of the RICO Act. For me, this made it difficult to navigate the page and fully grasp the key components of the RICO Act. The RICO predicate offenses section offers valuable information on racketeering activity, yet is located towards the end of the summary and past subsections that would have otherwise benefited from this section's information. I believe the creation of a "criminal suit" category adjacent to its civil counterpart, a combination of Civil provisions and Civil suits, and re-organization of the subsections to follow a logical order would enhance the article's clarity and organizational capabilities.

While most of the article contains citations, the five that are missing pertain to key information throughout the article. In the History section, information on Senator John L. McClellan's involvement in drafting the RICO Act is not cited. The same goes with information on treble damages under Civil suits, the government selling its interest in Cauble Enterprises back to Cauble's wife and son under The Cowboy Mafia, Gil Dozier's presidential commutation under Gil Dozier, and information pertaining to Anti-SLAPP under Application of RICO laws. Even with 81 other citations, the lack of completely cited information gives me a bad impression of some of this article's presented content.

On the flip side, the article starts with a strong introduction to the RICO Act and its initial focus on organized crime. While the content in this section diverges from the typical "organized crime" persona, the explanation that the RICO Act was not meant for strictly mob and mafia-related crimes brought flavor to its subsequent examples of corporations, small groups of individuals, and even labor unions being charged with RICO. The article also contains a list of famous cases in U.S. History pertaining to RICO charges, from The Cowboy Mafia in the late 1970s to more recent RICO charges against Donald J. Trump in 2023. These cases are in a great position in the article as they build on the broad use of the RICO Act.

When looking into the References in this article, I understood that it would be impossible to thoroughly verify each of the 81 different sources. When briefly looking over the page, most, if not all, cited sources were relevant to the topic at hand or specific to referenced RICO cases. Many of the sources pertaining to the legal framework of RICO were taken from the Department of Justice, Supreme Court, News Articles, accessible books, research, etc. In this search, I did find that some sources were other Wikipedia pages. In regards to references, I believe citing a relevant Wikipedia page can be helpful; however, a second citation that includes the other Wikipedia page's source should always be used to trace the information to a verifiable source. In this case, the sixth citation, under Enterprise defined, was linked to a stub-class Wikipedia page with zero citations, making it strictly unreliable. Other citations appear to be dated, however, it is to be expected when referencing an act that has been law for over 50 years. The more recent citations develop towards the end, specifically when discussing famous cases. With that, there should be an effort to modernize these sources, or at least incorporate more recent sources to coo berate the claims. By strictly relying on these older sources, changes or new information may be missed regarding the topic at hand.

After navigating to the talk page, I learned that the discussion surrounding RICO was all-encompassing and contained multiple discussions on various topics. In these behind-the-scenes conversations, many users bring up legitimate suggestions, such as the incorporation of certain famous RICO cases, international equivalencies to RICO, questions on whether specific investigations can be classified as RICO, and general clarification on material brought up within the article. However, there was no tell-tale issue that users constantly brought up. Instead, it was quite the opposite, with individuals debating the relevance of Trump's state RICO charges (this article pertains to federal RICO) to one individual talking about the lack of a topic on "the use of American lawfare against third world countries that challenge the empire's hegemony." While I found this type of debate interesting, there was no consistent dialogue, and overall, it did not significantly contribute to my evaluation of this article. In terms of Wiki projects, this RICO Article is of interest in three areas: the United States, law, and crime and biography. Since these are extensive topics compared to the specificity of the RICO Act, navigating these articles was not of help. Despite this, individuals navigating these broad projects searching for information on organized crime would benefit from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, making it essential to at least the areas of Law and Crime and Biography.