User:Bbelliott1875/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.


 * Name of article: Miscegenation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * My interest in doing this article is primarily to define and learn the history of one of our course's core concepts. I figured this was about as big-picture as I could get for my evaluation, so, while it is low-hanging fruit, I hope to learn something useful, applicable, and currently unknown about the term.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Most definitely. The article begins with a concise, accurate, and useful introduction to the term that, while not nearly as detailed as it could be, would prove sufficient for a quick skim on the core idea.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * For our intents and purposes, I would say yes. The intro speaks categorically about the term, and, while it doesn't really run the full gauntlet of information provided, it does provide a solid enough framework to prep the reader for the following material.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it doesn't. The Lead is an excellent and thorough primer for the article itself and does good work in keeping its informational borders both well defined and well adhered to.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say not. In many ways, it feels reminiscent of a textbook chapter introduction. It's very "mile-wide, inch-deep" in a way that isn't detrimental to its role as an introduction.

Lead evaluation
This is a lead that knows its purpose and performs it well. If you just wanted the most bare-bones description possible, it'd be a great kick-off, and it does excellent preparatory work in readying its audience as to what comes next.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, extremely so. The article does an excellent job in sticking to its topic and providing interesting surrounding information. Judging from its scope, I would say this is an extremely well-curated article, and, as such, it manages to do basic things with ease.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I would say it's exceptionally up-to-date. The article makes use of studies as recent as the mid-to-late '00s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think everything found within is appropriate and

Content evaluation
This article covers a lot of ground, and it does so in a balanced, even-keel way that doesn't dally on the unnecessary or place interest on one topic over another.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I would say so. Most of its information is primarily historical, so, the biases of history aside, I think it does an excellent job in providing its information in a neutral way. There isn't exactly much room for anything other than objectivism which leaves little room for undue agendas.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I would say not. Everything seems fairly objective.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I would say this is one of the article's strong points. Representation is fairly equal.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Again, the information is primarily historical. I would say that the article, in presenting semi-objective history, does a solid job of allowing the reader the freedom to come to their own conclusions.

Tone and balance evaluation
Both the tone and balance of this article is excellent.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, I would say so. From what I checked, everything seemed fairly well-researched.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * With 442 source, I would definitely consider the research found in this article to be quite thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Many of the sources appear to be from the mid-to-late 2000's. I would consider this to be current enough since so much of the information is historical.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They sure do, but, with 442 sources, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some non-functioning links.

Sources and references evaluation
It's well researched, and the sources used seem informative, appropriate, and current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well-written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, this seems to be an exceptionally well-curated article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I would say so. Everything is well-organized in a way that's extremely approachable and easy to follow.

Organization evaluation
The article's organization is excellent.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are relatively few images in this article, but I think this is due to the mass of content at hand. This is already a gigantic article. The addition of more visual information would only disrupt the work's already large scope.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * When used, they do a fair job of describing what's to be seen.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, I would say so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, I believe so. They do an excellent job of breaking up the walls of text found in each section without overstaying their welcome.

Images and media evaluation
This was fine.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are two primary conversations a listed: a call for severe editing and a proposal to merge the article with another. I'm not sure I agree with either of these claims. The call for editing seems a little biased in that the user seems to want a one-stop shop for a related topic (intermarriage in the U.S.) which, while related, is distanced enough that it should be its own thing. The same can be said about the merger proposal.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's currently at a C-level, and it is part of 5 WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I think, from a surface level, the two aren't that different from one another. Instead, this just goes much deeper with specific historical info.

Talk page evaluation
I don't really agree with either of the posts found on the talk page, but it's good that these kind of considerations are taking place.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * According to its rating, it needs work, but I think it stands well-enough on its own. It has an exceptionally broad cache of information while still playing in its own wheelhouse.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I would say how wide of a net it casts is its strongest suit. The organization is also exceptional.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think it's pretty excellent as it is.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is fairly complete. Apparently, it's lacking in some more specific areas (hence the c rating), but, to the uneducated, I think it's just fine.

Overall evaluation
I think this is a solid enough article.

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: