User:Chichi2021/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: Japanese Instrument of Surrender
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I was intrigued by the title when I was searching for an article. I think this is a very important component for ending the WW2.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. In provides definition and the main point.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really. It mainly talked about the parties involved and the significance of the date.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead included a part regarding the date, which I believe should count as a background information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but lacks main information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Most content are relevant to the event, but it lacks a section regarding the details of the instrument of surrender.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. I can see it was revised recently.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I find it interesting that the content mainly focused on the ceremony and the flags on the ceremony. I was expecting to see the provisions of the signed instrument of surrender. I feel this it is necessary to add such a section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I feel this article is not a historically underrepresented topic since WW2 is one of the most traumatic event of the century. The surrender terms should be very well know.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. Most content are facts and don't involve personal opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really. But I feel the article is more focused on the side of America.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As i noted for last question, there is a section regarding the flags of America. So I would say other Allied nations are relatively underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. There are just neutral facts, no judgements.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most facts were drew from primary source, such as official documents from that time. But they were secondary source such as books or memorials.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think they are. Some of those were form the National Archive and did a good job on reflecting the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A few are not current since those primary documents were from 1940s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes. While some sources are from official institutions, there were some secondary sources that written by individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Many links for the photo don't work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is relatively easy to read, besides there were a large chunk of text that author copied from another source.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not really.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * As I mentioned before, I think the article lacks an important section regarding the terms or provisions of the surrender declaration.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. Some provide the scene at the ceremony, which gives a picture of the historical background.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes. There are brief explanations underneath every photo.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Many are questions regarding the necessity of a certain section. Some pointed out the confusion they had when they were reading the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's rated as high importance under WikiProject Japanese military history.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I feel conversations on the talk page are more critical. The posts on there are very helpful for the author to better improve or revise the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article still needs editing to complete the story. It still lacks certain content regarding the main subject.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Although the content has ten sections, the total length is not too long. Many sections only include a few sentences.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article should add more factual contents to it. It can also add aspects from other Allied nations, not just focus on special things (such as flags) from America.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * While I feel the intention for putting those sections are good, the author didn't really complete the article. The structure is not very clear.

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: