User:Emma.Fagan/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: Oregon pioneer history
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I'm from Oregon, and would like to examine how the indigenous peoples living in my state are acknowledged in my state's history.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
''- lead exists, but is kind of funky grammatically - I get the point but it's a little weird. good summary though.''

''- info seems to be a decent summary of the article, nothing too new. very concise. table of contents is good.''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
''Content is fairly up-to-date, last updated in May of 2020. Content seems to be well-related throughout, although does spend a lot of time on the fur trade and means of transportation in the Oregon Territory.''

- last paragraph in fur trade section has some weird broken sentences that seem unrelated to other content in the section/need repair

- article does make mention of native peoples, but only briefly at the beginning of the "territory" and "government" sections.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
''Article seems neutral and informative throughout. seems to underrepresent any indigenous groups living in the territory at the time. Doesn't seem to be persuasive in any way.''

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
- some facts do seem to go uncited.

- ''variety of sources, but out of 10 sources about 1/3 come from the Oregon Blue Book. some links are archived, which is noted in the citation. Several sources date back to early-mid 1900s.''

Organization

 * Guiding question


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
- article is decently written, although some grammar issues are present throughout.

- some content seems out of place and would serve better elsewhere in the article.

-  'government' section may do better on its own, not as subpoint of 'territory'.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
''only one image present, the "salmon seal" of the Provisional Government of Oregon. Image description good, although the Provisional Government is rarely explicitly mentioned in the article other than as a "further information" source link - doesn't tell the reader when specifically it existed. Image citation seems good and is located at the top of the article - I think it would be better served in the 'Government' section, if another image could be found for the 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?
 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
- ''the only discussion present concerns whether or not this article should be filtered to only include events specific to the state area and not the Oregon territory as a whole. determined that article is meant as part of a set of articles covering history of Oregon, so breaking it down like this makes sense.''

- article is part of WikiProject Oregon, rated as Start-Class (below C-class).

- there just isn't a lot of discussion on the talk page, especially since the last thing discussed was in 2014 but the most recent edits were a few months ago.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
''Overall, this seems like the beginnings of a decent article. It's developing well, but seems to lack key information in some areas/only draws on a few sources. Could be improved with further exploration of indigenous peoples present in the area of the territory, better citations, and fleshing out of information in a relevant manner.''

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: