User:CJG6268/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Russo-Ukrainian War

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this topic because I have been doing extensive research on my own, revolving around the background and current events involving Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A second side note to why I have picked this topic is because my grandmother has lived in Georgia for many years. This isn't Georgia in the United States is the one that used to be a part of Russian and disbanded from them around 1918.

Evaluate the article

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The lead does, in fact, include an introductory sentence and is constantly reviewed back to throughout the entirety of the document. In addition, the article's topic is constantly brought up throughout the entire article.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead gives a detailed overview of what each section has to offer. This is needed in an article such as this because of its length and content.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

From my understanding, everything was present in the article and then some. The answer to this question is no.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I would say the lead was lengthy and a little over-detailed. But, I understand why because of the plethora of content this Wikipedia page covers.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

This extremely informative article delved into almost every aspect of what has happened between Ukraine and Russia from 2014 to the present day.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

The content was updated from 2014 to 2022. As a result, this article is highly up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I didn't find any content that was missing from this article. Granted, it was an extremely lengthy article with a metric ton of information.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, it deals with the oppression of specific groups of people but does it in a respectful and informative way.


 * Is the article neutral?

The article seems to sway in Ukraine's favor, but for a good reason. Overall, it was more informative than biased.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

It sways in respect of Ukraine's favor, but it's because Russia is oppressed. They have been battling turmoil since they broke off from the USSR


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

It seems to be an even split of what is happening during this time of war. It gives accurate detail of what is happening and the socioeconomic struggles of both countries.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article seems to put an emphasis on Ukraine, as stated previously, but also gives an accurate representation of Russian citizens not engaging in heinous acts upon their neighboring country.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, in-text citations link to real-world news and accurate sources.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, about 5-8 pages of citations have cited scholars who are knowledgeable about the topic.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, they date from 2014 to the present day (2022).


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, this article seems to follow all rules set by Wikipedia and the research topics we have discussed throughout our class.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, there are plenty of scholarly articles that involve actual Ukrainians and Russians who have lived and experienced these tragic events. This article still holds weight, though, for the average reader.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links work.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article uses some possibly wordy and hard-to-read sentences with advanced word choice, but overall I understood the material.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, each section has a heading with accurate placement and citations to follow.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, there are a couple of pictures of monarchs from the discussion areas.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes, they are.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes, they do. They are all cited and have corresponding end-note citations.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, they're appealing and don't take away from the text.


 * What is the article's overall status?


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article has a plethora of information given to us and does a great job of structuring and giving the reader pertinent information without fluff or disinformation.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article could be broken down and not be as long. I struggled to stay engaged, but besides its length of information, it was well-structured and adequately cited.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article was highly developed, including almost if not all information about the topic at hand. It was a beneficial learning tool for me, and I did enjoy reading most of this article.