User:Boiledteeth/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Tactical frivolity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is relevant to the course as well as my final project on the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is clear, concise, and properly formatted. It could possibly be better served by having a longer lead section with more than one paragraph. Because the topic is so broad, it is hard to gage how much content is missing from the article, but it is clear that the article does not cover all of the history and uses of tactical frivolity. The article itself even seems to acknowledge that, given the quote "There is much more extensive literature covering the use of humour by the protest movements which emerged in the 20th century", which is not expanded upon. I can think of many uses of tactical frivolity that are not covered in this article, such as the work of the organization The Yes Men. The tone of the article seems to be neutral. The article relies heavily on indirect quotes from journalists, authors, and activists, such as David Graeber, Johann Hari, Molly Ivens, and Luke Bretherton. The organization could be better, as all of the examples are within the header of "In international anti-capitalist protests" except for a small, bullet-pointed section about counter-protests to the Ku Klux Klan, even though not all of the other examples were anti-capitalist protests. It could be better formatted by being more properly organized into the causes the protests reflect, where they took place, or what groups conducted them. The images are used well, captioned accurately, and in accordance with Wikipedia copyright guidelines. The content could also be more current, with the most recent source being from 2015, eight years ago as of now. The sources are accurate, reliable, and largely academic. The further readings section could most definitely use some expansion, listing only one work. The article has several grammatical errors, such as incomplete sentences, incorrectly used semicolons, and missing punctuation. Several of the links, including most of the External Links section, are no longer working, meaning that the information cited to them is no longer accurately cited. The article was apparently nominated for deletion in 2009, but no consensus was reached. It is not rated on the content assessment scale. The talk section also discusses many changes and contributions that don't seem to reflect in the article. Many in the talk section forgot to sign their messages, and some are behaving in a less than good faith manner. Overall, this seems to be an underdeveloped article that could do with an entire overhaul.