User:Aremler/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Afghan cameleers in Australia
 * It's a topic we don't know much about and would like to investigate further

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * It includes a concise and clear sentence explaining the topic at hand.
 * It addresses the main sections and what these sections will further explore.
 * The lead only has information which is further explained in the article.
 * While fairly detailed, the lead is as concise as it can be in explaining each relevant point.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The content is extremely relevant, is as up to date as appropriate, and the only criticism would be that the beginning of the impact and legacy section is very relevant to the discrimination section. While the discrimination section addresses certain types of discrimination, it does not mention any religious discrimination.

Content evaluation
The content is in depth, well presented, and entirely accurate. It focuses heavily on the individuals involved and how their demographics have evolved over time, as one would expect.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The tone dealt heavily with the history of the individuals involved in nomadic camaleering. The article seems fairly weighted towards representing the ways in which the camaleers have been discriminated against by the government, but this might simply be a reflection of the reality of the circumstances. I would be interested in hearing about the demands of the camaleers and they ways in which they interacted with the government directly. It is not persuasive.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Every single fact in the article is backed up by a second source, except one section of the demographic information on the camaleers is unclear. The sources are thorough and are all secondary. They are very current, the links work, the only issue is that absolutely none of the issue reflects anyone actually involved in camaleering, although that does present biases.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The organization, grammar, spelling, and writing of the article is wonderful. If anything, iw ould say it takes a lot of time to describe the history of the indivdiduals involved but it is absolutely warranted, the history is complex. If possible I would try to distribute the word count of the article equally throughout the sections, but this seems unrealistic and is not necessary.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The images in the article are extremely relevant and bring life to the concepts described in the article. The images are well captioned, adhere to copyright regulations, and correspond directly to the sections of the article they accompany.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The talk page deals predominantly with controversy over terminology, how to refer to the Afgans, and the actual reality of the ethnic groups involved in camaleering. Overall the article is a C rated article and is very in depth.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall the article is wonderful at communicating the history of the topic at hand but not as fantastic at describing the religious history of the individuals involved and their connections with the government. I think overall the article is wonderful and very complete, there are no additional sections I would add or topics I would cover.

Optional activity

 * 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: