User:AlexisTReed/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The 1619 Project

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose The 1619 Project because I recall hearing an ad on Spotify about its podcast component and thought to myself, "that's a compelling, interesting approach to think about slavery." I recall that it sparked criticism and debate, but hadn't looked deeply into it at the time I first learned about it, so I am curious to dig deeper. Furthermore, I chose this article because it fills an equity gap. U.S. history curriculum curators in K-12 education and the textbook industry consists predominantly of white men. Thus, I think it's important to hear the perspective of slavery from Black historians and scholars, especially because Black people the ones who suffer from post-traumatic slave disorder as descendants of Indigenous and African people who were enslaved. Additionally, I think not being able to tell our stories and our ancestors' stories and challenge the pre-exiting logic developed predominately by white men about slavery and the economic impact is a trigger to those of us trying to heal that disorder. My preliminary impression of this article was it has a plethora of references and explains the reactions of different groups well.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The introductory sentence is straight-forward and concise. It does present info that isn't listed in the article -- a broadsheet article, live events, and the podcast.

Content

I think there could be improvement with adding content, such as information about live events and the podcast. All other content is relevant to the topic. This topic addresses an equity gap, which is good. The content is up-to-date as it lists 2020 accolades received and a clarification made by The Times.

Tone and Balance

I think different viewpoints, i.e. journalists and historians, are addressed well and the author's tone is neutral. I think a lot of viewpoints are present, except for the projects' audience. However, I am mindful that might be hard to measure and create an imbalance in the article by talking about viewpoints too much.

Sources and References

The sources are current, several of the links I clicked on worked, and thorough. There are sources from opposers, such as why some people want the project's curriculum defunded, including President Trump, in addition to neutral and informative sources.

Organization and Writing Quality

I think overall it meets the marks in this category, however, I am curious why "implementation in schools" is listed at the end, past references.

Images and Media

I think there is a need for more images. There are two currently photos, one is the logo and the other includes a description. The second one isn't laid out in a visually appealing way to me.

Talk Page Discussions

This article has appeared in The Top 25 Report in 2020. I see discussions mainly about historians' criticisms, Wikipedia bias and other critiques. It is included in several WikiProjects, such as African diaspora, journalism, United States, and United Sates History -- all of which are rated C-class and low-importance.

Overall Impressions

I think the article is good overall and have questions circling in my mind why it's rated c-class. I think there could be improvement in the background, such as the content of the project. After consideration, I think there might be too heavy on a focus on different perspectives and criticisms. I think "implementation in schools" should be moved up and expanded on. I think there could be 1-2 photos added. Lastly, I think live events and podcasts should be listed in detail since it's in the bio.