User:Dc10732/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Critical terrorism studies)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
To begin, I chose this article because I found the research regarding terrorism extremely important. I believe this topic matters because it allows our nation to gain some knowledge about terrorism which could potentially help us prevent any future attempts. Initially I found this article very informative as it provided historical background about this topic and examined areas where previous studies failed.

Evaluate the article
The lead in this article includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead also includes a brief description of the article’s major sections. Furthermore, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. Overall, the lead is concise and gives the reader a good taste of what the rest of the article is going to talk about.

The content throughout the article is relevant to the topic. The content of this article is up to date and was last edited in October 2022. There does not appear to be any content missing or does not belong, everything in the article is relevant. The article, however, does not deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

This article is written from a neutral point of view. There does not seem to be any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. One viewpoint that could be extended is the bullet about sources of funding to a paragraph explaining concerns about who is setting the research agenda. Additionally, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

For the most part, the majority of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, however, there are a few facts that I came across that should be cited. All the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. Some of the sources of this article are current, however, there are several sources that are not current. Further, all the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I feel as though there ﻿could be better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites. Additionally, all the links that I have clicked are relevant and do work.

Moreover, the article was well organized. It was straight to the point and easy to read. One thing in particular that I found interesting was the separation of sections. Also, each section within the article showed decent relevance. Also, this article did have any grammatical or spelling errors.

This article did not provide its readers with any pictures that could have enhanced understanding of the content. To continue, there aren't any conversations going on amongst the editors regarding how to represent this topic. This article is a part of the WikiProject Terrorism. This is related because it provides content on terrorism, individual terrorists, and incidents related on Wikipedia. I believe the way Wikipedia discusses the article is different from class discussions because the article provides only factual content while our class discussion leaves room for expansion with ideas regarding the content. For example, we are allowed to propose our own individual opinions regarding each week's topic after receiving the historical context.

Overall, I believe the article did a decent job at informing the readers about the topic of critical terrorism studies. One strength of this article includes capturing the audience's attention by using relevant historical events such as September 11, 2001, to help readers understand why there is a need for research. One way I think this article could improve is by making sure the citations that the articles used match the references. This can have a significant impact on the article's credibility. Lastly, after taking everything into consideration I would argue that this article is underdeveloped when regarding the references.