User:Bradyscheiner/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of Bolivia

 * Everything in the article appears relevant to the topic, and there is no distracting information.
 * Information does not appear out of date, although more information could be added to sections such as "Transport," "Law and Crime," "Railways," "Economy," "Technology," "Tourism," "Education," "Health," and "Sports," as they are far too short in relation to the extent of information that is readily available.
 * As far as I am aware, the information presented in the sections entitled "Ethnic and Racial Classifications" and "Indigenous Peoples" is an accurate representation of the history of the marginalized populations of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.
 * The neutrality of two sections, "2005–2019 Morales Presidency" and "Interim government 2019–2020", is disputed. These are arguably the two most controversial sections in the article, as well as being the two most recent additions to the "History" section, and I think resolving this dispute would add greatly to the apparent reliability of the article.
 * The information presented in the two sections listed above do not appear to be biased based on my inspection, although I was not knowledgeable on the events it was describing preceding my evaluation of this article, so I cannot say for certain without further research.
 * It appears as though both opposing perspectives on the aforementioned sections are represented equally, but this may be a misjudgment due to my lack of previous knowledge on this subject.
 * The links work, however some of the sources, specifically those regarding the 2019 election, make contradictory claims to each other. This contradiction makes me believe many of the sources on the 2019 election are unreliable. These sources may appear neutral at first glance (many are considered to be fairly "reliable" news outlets/journals), but some seem to use charged language that imply objectivity, when that is not the case. In fact, source #89, "Why Is Evo Morales Suddenly No Longer President of Bolivia?", makes the erroneous claim that Morales "hand-picked" the Supreme Court, when, in reality, the justices were elected in a nonpartisan national election. Also, there is a continual use of charged language throughout the article, in addition to a claim that is directly contradictory to information published in the Wikipedia article itself, information that could easily sway a reader into believing a certain point of view. That was ostensibly the most biased and unreliable source that I reviewed, but it was not the only one. Additional sources of concern include #62, #80, and #87.
 * The sources do come from a very wide array of publications.
 * There is very little talk going on behind the scenes, as there has only been one message posted in the past two months. It asks about a possible addition, the "Flag of the Patujú flower," and has yet to receive a response.
 * The article is rated as "C-class, Top-importance," and is a part of four different WikiProjects. It has also been the subject of two Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments.
 * The way Wikipedia discusses this topic does not seem different than the way it is talked about in any other forum.