User:DawnWinery Peacock/Evaluate an Article

Chinese Wikipedia Evaluation

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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?Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)No, all information is presented in detail in several subsequent sections.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a very concise description about the history and development of Wikipedia China.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article covers a variety of topics from the formation of the Chinese version of Wikipedia to controversial incidents.
 * Is the content up-to-date?The most recent date I can find in the article is 2015, and there is no update after that, so the content is not up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is questionable whether the section named “2021 Wikimedia action” belongs in this article. Although it is stated in its own article, “2021 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Chinese Wikipedia” I am not sure if this is essential.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article mentioned about the minority topics in China: the Tiananmen square protests of 1989, but not talk in depth. It is hard to use this single detail to deal with the equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Most of the sections use neutral language with the exception of the “Self-censorship” section.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?    No, the tone in this article is neutral, presenting unbiased fact and evidence.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints on censorship of PRC, especially on political and historical issues, are fairly balanced in terms of representation. It could be argued that the viewpoint of whether self-censorship is practiced is leaning towards positivity, with some editors from Mainland China deleting contents in favor of that.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? This topic is not really related to the minority group, it is more based on the historical development of the Chinese Wikipedia.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article does not favor one argument as it uses sources to support facts from both sides.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Although most of the sources are coming from the Newspaper, the sources used are distributed from  different local newspapers, use different points of view in different countries, and overall neutral illustrate the development of Wikipedia in Chinese all over the world. And most of the news are from authoritative media organizations such as the BBC.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  Yes. While the article includes one published article on the topic, most of the sources are from news media. Considering the uniqueness of this topic, it is thorough with limited authoritative publication.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, there are some sources from 2021.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources include authors with diverse backgrounds from both Chinese and the large Chinese diaspora to western authors such as the UK and the US.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes, there is. Such as the source use for illustration the block of Wikipedia is heavily based on the Newspaper, but there are better source like “Shocking the Crowd: The Effect of Censorship Shocks on Chinese Wikipedia '' Source: Proc. 11th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 2017. Publication Year: 2017. Which may help to explain the blocking in a more neutral way because it is a peer reviewed article published in a journal. Zhang, Ark Fangzhou, et al. Shocking the Crowd: The Effect of Censorship Shocks on Chinese Wikipedia. 2017. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsarx&AN=edsarx.1704.00412&site=eds-live.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most of them work including several links redirected to updated URL. A few links from Chinese websites were no longer available.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the article includes relevant graphs to statistical data and photos to illustrate the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the title of the images explain the image in a detailed way.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all images were uploaded by editors and were their own works.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the images are interesting and colorful and diversified.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are several different types of conversations going on, namely, the language and dialect conversions, clarifying of language uses and translation, finding of sources and references, editorial conflict over censorship and deletion (which started to become a battle forum between editors), etc. One uncommented strange thread was written in Polish and seemed to be irrelevant to the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is not very controversial, much of the discussion is about the relationship between Chinese dialects and languages and whether to suggest a separate Wikipedia page for dialects. Also a lot of complaints about the blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China have been placed on this page for discussion. And it is part of the Wikiprojects of Wikipedia, China, Taiwan, culture, Hong Kong, Macau, Internet, Law, Media, Human right, freedom of speech, and internet culture.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The way Wikipedia discusses the topic differs from the way we’ve talked about in class as it requires the editor to back on each comment with sources and reference with some level of formality. Wheras the class discussion is more opinion oriented informal exchange between students, usually just based on observations and experiences.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The article is largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citation and is needed for improvement. But as a whole, this article concisely explains the history of the development of the Chinese version of Wikipedia, the problems encountered in its development, and the dilemma that Wikipedia is now facing in China that it cannot develop. This article has summarized almost all the important events of Wikipedia Chinese.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article’s strengths are the well structured sections, especially its coverage of the history and progression of the Chinese Wikipedia sites. It also has a detailed cited presentation of conversion between traditional and simplified Chinese as well as notes on various dialects.
 * How can the article be improved?This article can be improved by using more unbiased sources such as the peer reviewed articles and comprehensive illustrations of the sources. Also, it will be better to explain the two version of Wikipedia is the two version of Chinese past in detailed, such as the specific evidence from the Chinese version Wikipedia page and English version Wikipedia page of same person/thing/word/place.

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 enough complete but it does have underdeveloped areas. Particularly, the reference is very generalized to each paragraph without enough inline citation to each sentence. In the section representing viewpoints on “Self-censorship”, the overly long quotes are not appropriate. In the subsection “Meetings” of Section “Community”, it is vague what year is implied by “currently” as it involves different time periods.