User:Chief Lucy/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: Black site
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. : I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is what my group's final project is going to be, so I thought it would be useful to evaluate the article and also learn high level some of the information that I might use as part of my final project, or perhaps find some sources that would be good to use. It also has a multiple issue banner on the top, so there are definitely ways that it can be improved.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * it has a table of contents, but does not actually describe what the sections are in words.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it mainly serves as an overview
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is concise, but it does begin to get into more specific information rather than staying general. It also doesn't give an overview of the scope of the black cites network and instead talks about Poland and other information not directly relevant to the definition of a black cite.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that the article is mainly focused on CIA black sites, but I feel like black sites are way more than just in the United States or just in reference to the CIA. Content touching on that would be beneficial. I also think that more history of how these sites came to be and whether they are directly related to the war on terror or have always existed in some form would be interesting. More context needed!

Content evaluation
The content is strong. It covers a lot of bases and builds well.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The warning banner at the top claims that the article may be "lending undue weight" to ideas, interests, or controversies. After reading the article, I think the reason for this is twofold. First, there is not a lot of public information released about these sites. Besides Bush's speech, there is no public information and therefore all of the information used is coming from secondary sources or suspicions. By citing these repeatedly, it can make the article feel as though all of its information is coming from a few sources when, in actuality, there are 148 sources used. I think secondly, the article deals with sites that are unmapped because of torture. Dealing with a topic like that, it is challenging to write neutrally. I believe there are times when a bias against torture or distaste with the US for participating in it is revealed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No specific claims, but the overall tone seems to lean toward viewing the government and these sites as negative and immoral, versus a larger part of statehood.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Definitely, the article is written from a US point of view, and terrorists are consistently labeled as muslim and it regularly cites those people as the ones who are held.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not obviously, no. I think sometimes reading through this makes it seem as though black sites exist only for the torture of prisoners that the US government doesn't want people to know about versus just describing secret sites and the range of reasons they may exist.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * For the most part. The legal status of detainees section is missing sources, and a few other sentences here and there are missing, but on the whole the article is well cited. The authors have pulled in some sections from mainly other articles, so the information is not directly cited, like in the detainees section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic
 * Yes, they cover everything from US government speeches to trials and other countries statements as well. I do think they are missing some more current information, assuming that information exists.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the information is fairly old, specifically dating around the Bush administration. As I do more research for my project I'll pay attention to the different sources and when they were published to decide whether most information was released a while ago or whether the article was out of date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is easy to read, but a little lengthy. It clips pretty well from place to place though.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It doesn't have any major issues jumping out at me. Definitely some of the sentences are a little bit long or wordy or choppy, especially at the beginning. It flows better later on.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is very well organized. The sections are clear. Some information i'd like to see is how these CIA black cites fit into the larger picture of the black site network and whether other countries have similar sites.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Not many. It could definitely use more but more than likely images are hard to come by since the sites are secret.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, for the most part. They all give their citations where due and provide some context.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are a little small and don't break up the text well as they are off to the side. I think it would be helpful to have more images, larger images, and to use them to break up the lengthy text.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There have been a lot of conversations about the narrow scope of the article, biases in how torture is referenced, and out of date information. People aren't talking about how to connect this article to the broader trends, which I think would be valuable. There is a lot of discussion back and forth between editors over POV and how to make it neutral while also encompassing all of the information needed, especially relating to definitions of torture and controversy. There is also some talk that, with references out of date, it should be archived or reorganized to fall under part of the War on Terror issue.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of 5 wiki projects:
 * Human Rights - B class, high importance
 * Correction and Detention Facilities: B class, high importance
 * Cold War: C class, mid importance
 * Military history: B class
 * US / Govt. B class, low importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It gives a lot more examples and a lot more in depth, but fails to touch on the context of it as a greater role in the war on terror and in relation to other countries networks.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, the article is strong and detailed and gives a good overall picture of what a black site is and some examples. It has some problems with out of date information and biases, and a narrow context for how these black sites actually operate. It is well written mostly, especially later on, and has been remarked on pretty extensively.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It does well covering CIA black sites, the network, and how that information became public knowledge. It also, in my opinion, remains pretty unbiased in discussing them and tries to give an understanding of their history as something of public knowledge and how that information was gained.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It could broaden its focus to talk about other kinds of black cites in the US and also touch on other countries and whether or not they have similar structures in place. It would also be helpful to have more context about how these sites developed in tandem with the war on terror and whether they existed earlier and in what form.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well developed in the areas of interest, but lacks development in broader context, non-US points of view, and more current sources.

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: