User:Csadams11/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: Christian mission
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen this article because it pertains to the research I did over mission trips and modern day colonialism.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The article does have an introductory sentence that gives the reader an idea of the topic that will be discussed as well as a description of the main sections. These sections include the history of Christian missions, concepts of missions, and criticism of missions. All information given in the lead was mentioned, referenced, or expanded on in the article. Additionally, the lead was the correct length to give enough information without being too detailed.


 * 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

All information mentioned in the article is relevant to Christian missions/ missionaries and was last updated on October 29th at 4:48 pm. After reading the article, I was not left asking questions or reading information that could be considered fluff. Because this topic is based on white, christian protestants who go to people, often of color, and offer aid, there are some areas that address topics about underrepresented populations.


 * 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

This article does a good job of staying neutral by approaching the history of missions and the major background of the idea and then following that information with criticisms of mission trips. Doing so allows readers to look into both sides of the topic and ensure they are not reading biased information. However, I do believe they needed more representation for the criticisms of missions because they only included 3 parts to criticism while the history and concepts sections had 11 parts. I do not believe this article is trying to be persuasive because it discusses every view point to inform rather than talk badly about one side or the other.


 * 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

All the links included in this article do work and lead to reliable sources. The article also includes extra reading for those who want to further their research passed this article. While some sources are older because they pertain to the long history of the Christian church, most are up to date and seem to be updated/watched frequently by other Wikipedians. The authors seem to come from diverse backgrounds and have different viewpoints which ensures the article is to biased.


 * 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 organization of this article is very impressive because you are able to find what you want to read about easily through the subheadings and with the in-depth contents table. I was not able to find any grammatical or spelling errors which highlighted the high-level writing done in this article.


 * 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 only included two images: one was a cross to show the symbol for Christianity and the other was an image of a missionary preaching in China. The images are well captioned and include the link to source where the picture came from which adheres to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations. While only having two images, they are both placed next to the information in which they pertain to and flow seamlessly with the written information.


 * 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

Most of the talk page coincides with my previous statement saying there is not enough criticism information. Many people are speaking on the idea that this page does not speak on the idea that missions are considered by many people to be modern day colonization. The article is rated as a Start level article which means it needs more sources to be added. It is apart of the WikiProject Christianity and the only way the project differs from my previous assignment on modern day colonialism is the amount of criticism information is lacking.


 * 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

I agree with the status of this information being at Start because while it gives ample amount of information on the history so reader's can understand, it needs to add more resources on the criticism so that the balance of information improves. Therefore, it is underdeveloped in terms of the argument side.


 * 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: