User:Connor.Sprouse/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.


 * Censorship in Cuba: Censorship in Cuba
 * I wanted to understand some of the outcomes of the Cuban Revolution both socially, politically, and economically.

Lead
The lead's introductory sentence does not adequately describe the articles topic, instead opting to start with a description of the extensiveness of it. The lead does dedicate 2 sentences briefly describing the major sections of the article including technology, politics, and culture. All of the information in the lead is present in the article, ordered very concisely without too many details.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

I think the article tries pretty hard to be neutral but it is difficult to be neutral when the subject of the article is something overwhelmingly negative such as censorship. Like I previously stated, the claims are sort of biased in that it is negative, but thats an understandable bias in my opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The article is backed up by a slew of journalist inquiries into the censorship of Cuba, ranging from CNN to the US department of State. They reflect the available literature on censorship well in my opinion ranging from historical sources to current ones. Only one secondary source that I checked didnt have a link to the content being cited, but it was a newspaper from the 90s.


 * 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

The article is very well written in my opinion. I could follow it easily and it was very digestible in terms of informative content. The sections make it easy to understand the different facets of Cuban censorship both topically and chronologically.


 * 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
 * The article doesn't really add any images that enhance understanding of the topic whatsoever.


 * 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
 * There were some issues people on the talk page with point of views and biases. The article is rated c class with a mid to high importance to edit.


 * 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

The strengths of the article are the organization and the interesting details added to it. Some weaknesses include POVs, reliable sources, and accuracy.


 * 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: