User:Bongofish2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
1970s energy crisis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I selected this article because I wanted to delve deeper into a topic I've heard about but haven't thoroughly analyzed before. Exploring the 1970s Energy Crisis is important to me as it can provide insights into the historical legal efforts related to alternative energy methods. Going into this article, my understanding of the crisis is broad and basic. I anticipate that by the end, I'll have a more comprehensive grasp of its causes and how its effects continue to impact the world today.

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.)

 Leading Section 


 * Lacking a header (something like "Overview" would have been sufficient)
 * The introductory paragraph (two sentences total) does a sufficient job outlying what the article will cover but is slightly misleading
 * This part of the first sentence: "occurred when the Western world, particularly the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand" implied that it would cover all areas formerly mentioned. The article is focused primarily on the United States and what was happening internally. No other country listed gets that focus
 * Does a good job giving descriptions of the articles section; however does include some information not covered throughout the article
 * The last paragraph: "Some other countries, such as Norway, Mexico, and Venezuela, benefited as well. In the United States, Texas and Alaska, as well as some other oil-producing areas, experienced major economic booms due to soaring oil prices even as most of the rest of the nation struggled with the stagnant economy."
 * The article does not provide more information about the areas that benefited from increased prices

 Content 


 * The content provided aligns with the topics from the leading section
 * Given this is historical the content provided is up to date
 * Based on my understanding of the topic there is no content missing
 * Some content does not align properly across sections (minor)
 * Talking about the embargo placed on the U.S for supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict
 * First says January: "the embargo lasted only until January 1974"
 * Second says March: "convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March 1974"

Tone and Balance

 * The article is written in a neutral tone avoiding any phrasing that alludes towards a biased position
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It is clear that the focus in on the United States role in these crises and the effects of them in the United States. This leads to an overrepresentation of an American viewpoint and underrepresented viewpoints of other countries on the other side like those apart of the OAPEC (consisting of the Arab members of OPEC)
 * No specific demographic viewpoints on the effect in relation to their daily lives are given. Therefore there is no unequal representation, there simply aren't any
 * The article's tone does a good job is laying out a timeline and key aspects without trying to persuade the reader in any direction

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.


 * The sources used for this article are reliable and are relevant to the specific topic of the article
 * U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy
 * Time Magazine
 * The New York Times
 * University, Princeton; Program, Econometric Research
 * ect.


 * All facts provided in the article are supported by mentioned reliable source
 * The sources clearly provide the American viewpoint of the topic (which seems to be the purpose of the article). It is missing any source from the Middle Eastern countries involved to at least double check some of the historical information
 * Based on my search for outside information on the topic, the article used the best of available sources
 * All source links work under reference section

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * The article is written and organized well without any noticeable spelling or grammatical errors
 * Broken into two major parts with components in each making it easy to find specific information and clearly relates to the major topics of the article
 * "Key Periods" provides a logical timeline of information
 * "Effects" provides a logical timeline of information

Images and Media

 * The only media used throughout the article are graphs. The information on the graphs are useful to understanding the information in the paragraphs they are next to
 * The media does a good job of adding clarity while not being necessary to understand the article and are displayed in a way that does not distract from the goals of the article

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.


 * There are no conversation going on about the article. There is one comment, from 2009, adding some information about the time period. There is another suggesting an edit from 2009 as well.
 * There is no rating for the article and it is not apart of any WikiProjects
 * This is very much a historical rundown article without any opinion. In class we provide some personal thought with the information to create content.

Overall impressions

 * The article is definitely a well-developed article.
 * The strength of this article is the organization and easy to follow timeline of events
 * An area this article could improve is getting some more content from a more diverse range of sources.