User:Danielleaar/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: 1953 Iranian coup d'état
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I had previously done a project on the 1979 Revolution in Iran, so Ii thought it would be interesting to evaluate an article about an event in the country's history.

Lead

 * Guiding question


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It talks about what happened, who was involved, as well was when, where, and why the event occurred.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes- every major topic is mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No- the article just goes into greater detail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead could be more concise. There are small details (such as those about the AIOC) that would be better suited for the article content sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It has details relevant to the circumstances that brought on the coup, what happened during the coup, as well as the effects of the coup.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. The article even mentions the views of President Obama, as well as a tweet from as recent as 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, everything is somehow relevant to the event. If there are lasting implications from the coup, the article could go into more detail about those.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * For the most part, yes. Some sentences could be more neutral
 * "Nevertheless, Reza Shah was also a very harsh ruler who did not tolerate dissent." - The word harsh sounds very judgmental, even if it is true. The  author could have said "many would regard him as a harsh ruler" or something like tha, instead of stating a subjective measure as fact.
 * "The Tudeh violently attacked opponents under the guise of helping the prime minister (the cousin of the future queen of Iran, Farah Pahlavi, was stabbed at the age of 13 in his school by Tudeh activists), and unwittingly helped cause Mosaddegh's reputation to decline, despite the fact that he never officially endorsed them." - same criticism as above for "violent"
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes. The language surrounding the ruling styles of various leaders does sound biased, though it seems based in fact.(see above)
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It seems mostly even. Many critical sentences include views from both sides.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not really. It mostly lays out the facts surrounding the event, allowing reader top choose their own positions.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. Most sentences are cites, with some having multiple citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. The citations are largely from reputable news sources (NYT, BBC, CNN, etc.), Official government documents (United States Office of the Historian, declassified documents), and academic journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The information adding to the length of the article is all pertinent to the understanding of the article, and so it is not unnecessarily long. It is easy to read and gives readers information in a clear manner.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I was not able to spot any errors except one that looks like it was placed by an internet troll. "The experience gave him a lasting dislike for authoritarian rule and monarchy, and it helped make Mosaddegh a dedicated advocate of complete oil nationalizatiGay sex cardson in Iran."
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections and subsections all focus on one area meaking it easier to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes and no. Most of the pictures are of key people involved in the event.  While these do help understanding of who was involved, the article could have done with more pictures of locations, documents, etc.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Some are such as the one of Shaban Jafari, while other, like the one of Fazlollah Zahedi could do with more detail.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No, some of the images have unknown sources.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The images are positioned next to their relevant paragraphs, and don't distract from the text.  The images themselves are old so they are somewhat grainy, but otherwise they add to the overall article.

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 are questions about neutrality of the article, not always because of the tone/words used, but the frequency of the term used (specifically "democratically-elected).
 * There are talks about where to place certain information. The debate is over whether placing certain information in the viewpoints section is appropriate or redundant.
 * There is also a talk about the validity of a claim made about the relation of the 1953 coup to the 1979 Revolution. I agree with the author that it is a bold, reductionist claim to make. Having studied that revolution, I know there are other factors to be considered.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated B-Class. Part of WikiProjects: Military History, United States/Government, Iran.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A. But, Wikipedia articles such as this are generally different from the ones we talk about in class because of their neutrality.  While the information in class we are given are mostly neutral, we are then able to draw conclusions and pass judgement.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Complete.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is very detailed and informative. It appears to be laid out in chronological order which is easy to follow, while still placed in smaller, appropriate, easy to read sections.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could do with more development of the relationship between the 1953 coup and future events in Iranian history. It  could also do with better development in certain sections (see below).  The involvement of the United States could also do with more information, especially since is a part of the US WikiProject.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is complete and well-developed. However, there are some areas that could have had more information.  For example, the section on the US financial support is only 2 sentences.  There could be greater detail here. That being said, the lack of information here does not detract from the completeness of the article.

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: