User:Arfleming/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Afro-Arubans

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because I, myself, am Afro-Aruban. It matters because this is not a well-known or well-publicized subject, and matters to me personally because it has to do with my ancestral history. We are discussing matters related to race in our class. My first impression of the Wikipedia article was that it was very short.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

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?
 * Yes. The first sentence concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Yes.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise but includes details that are not present in the rest of the article.

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?
 * Yes, but there could be more.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I think so, but there are no dates.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be a content section about language, since the lead mentions languages.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes. It is about historically underrepresented populations, but does not say anything about their underrepresentation in media.

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?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No. This sentence: "Africans were brought to Aruba by Dutch settlers during the colonial era" could have been worded very differently so as to show the reality of what actually happened — it is in the passive voice, and does not mention slavery at all.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

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?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are, yes. The latest source was from 2023.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * 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.)
 * Yes. There are only 6 sources, and one is referenced 3 separate times. There is only one scholarly article (I'm not sure if it's peer reviewed) and there is no real news coverage. Only random websites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but there could be many more sections. There are only 2 sections.

Images and Media

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

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?
 * There are none on the talk page. The talk page links to this talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated Stub-class. It is part of WikiProject African diaspora
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There still isn't really much discussion on the African diaspora WikiProject talk page. One comment asks for the inclusion of African American women lawyers. It differs because, in class, we talk about topics related to race and the African diaspora a lot more.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is rated as Stub-class. Personally, I would say the article is not that strong.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is concise and clear.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There could be many more sections – the history section only has 2 sentences, and there's only one other section which is just a list of people. There could be a section for slavery/Dutch colonialism, for language, for people of Afro-Aruban descent, for the racial history, and more. It could draw from scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and newspaper clippings, which it currently does not.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is underdeveloped and poorly developed. There seems to be a lot of information missing.