User:BriCrockett/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: Arab Jews
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I have been doing some independent research into Jewish culture and thought this would be interesting to look into.h

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead concisely explains the definition of the term, where the Jewish communities are currently as well as where they have been and why and migrations occurred. It also explains the history of the term and the problems people have had with it. Everything mentioned in the lead was further expanded on clearly in the article's sections. The lead is relatively concise, with each topic introduction getting only a few lines. It is a good lead for the article as it is.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Everything in the article is directly related to Jewish communities either in the Arab world or those having come from it. The content is up to date with edits up through last month. The article is lacking information on Jewish populations in the Arab world pre-Islam as well as lacking more detailed information on the diaspora of these communities. Nothing in the article does not belong there. This article does address a currently underrepresented population.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The tone of the article is neutral and the opinions of several prominent theologians are included, as well as relevant historical perspectives properly attributed to the speakers. Those in the community are given more space, but in a way that I think is appropriate given the topic and their place in the conversation. A few scholars are given larger sections than others, which could be evened out in some sections. There do not seem to be any overt persuasive arguments. Much of the article is factual with a neutral presentation and all subjective opinions have multiple view points represented fairly.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Some of the facts or statements are missing citations or are too vague and need specifications so that a citation can be better applied. A variety of relevant and respected sources are cited ranging from books to articles, and many of them written in the last couple decades. The authors are diverse and some from marginalized backgrounds relevant to the article. There are a couple links that no longer work but the majority of them do, especially to newer sources or more stable ones like books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

I think the article is well written and clearly organized aside from a couple awkward sentences. I did not notice any glaring grammatical or spelling errors, but I am not going to pretend I am in any way skilled at copy editing. The structure of the sections is okay, though I would have preferred if they stared with the more historical sections and worked forward in time because many of the sections have a clear historical situation. The section titles are also slightly confusing, especially the first one. Over all, though, the sections make sense as separate sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There is only really an image of the Jewish star of David that is present and related to the article. The only other image is part of a link to another series of articles on Arabic culture and not strictly relevant to the article and lacks any kind of caption.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This article is part of several wiki projects oriented around both relevant regions and ethnic groups. The talk page has some conversations around editing some parts for better flow, but also some arguments about how to represent the subject both historically and in the present. When focusing historically there seems to be some confusion on what sources are the best and who came from where and the focus does not reflect the long history of strong Jewish presence in the Arabic world with differing degrees of respect that we have talked about in class. The modern arguments are difficult and often veer into tense personal territory because it concerns people alive and able to comment on talk pages.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

It is currently a C-Class article, so it is still under content review and discussion. The article is much stronger in more modern issues pertaining to the Arab world portion of Arabic Jews. The article is very sparse in historical areas, especially pre-Islam, and in its diaspora section. Besides expanding those sections the article could also use better headers and phrasing in some areas which were under contest in the talk. The article feels half complete to me, but with good bones.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: