User:East Indiez/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
George Lincoln Rockwell

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Personally, I found the article well written, and put together. I chose this article because I am personally fascinated by George Lincoln Rockwell and how he is simultaneously infamous and obscure. His interactions with individuals like Malcom X (who continues to be held in high regard by many) remains a subject with very little coverage, so I feel it would be important to engage in some more in-depth research on these interactions, and what prompted them to occur.

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? - Subject's name is disclosed.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Description is present.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) -All necessary information is present.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Lead is detailed adequately.

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? - All content pertains to the subject in question.
 * Is the content up-to-date? -Sources are a combination of past and contemporary.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - None is visible.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - In regards to the subject's personal opinions, yes.

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? - Visibly, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -None in an academic sense.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -Ideological discussions pertain only to subject's personal opinions.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? - That's the point of the entire article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - Of course not.

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? - All facts are documented.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - All are reliable.
 * Are the sources current? - Many are from the past.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - This does not matter.
 * 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.) - I have not time to vet this.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Most do, or have been modified too.

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? - Very much so.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - None visible.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - It is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - All are relevant.
 * Are images well-captioned? - When necessary.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? -All images are properly credited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - The all photos on the article are positioned where relevant.

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? - Discussion on the difference between murder and assassination.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - I was unable to see if this was the case.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - Very few ways, as my discussions of Mr Rockwell in class have been minimal.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? - It appears to be a respected article.
 * What are the article's strengths? -It is well written/informative.
 * How can the article be improved? - By expanding the section on black separatism.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - I would say it is well developed.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.