User:Emma Adriana/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Christchurch mosque shootings

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because Alt-Right terrorism is becoming more prevalent globally. The article appears to have a thorough grasp of the events that took place, and is organized well.

Christchurch mosque shootings article evaluation
Lead section


 * The article has a good introductory sentence.
 * The lead section does include some overview of the subjects discussed in the rest of the article; it does not mention all the major subtitles.
 * Lead includes only information present in the article.
 * Introduction is concise.

Content


 * Not all the content is relevant. Perhaps the extra information in the "aftermath" section is unnecessary here.  The article should not include information about fundraisers and philanthropy or other related alt-right shootings.
 * Content is up to date
 * A lot of the content in the "aftermath" section seems like it could use their own separate articles. There should not be content about separate shootings if the article is focusing on the Christchurch mosque shooting.
 * This article addresses hate speech and terrorism against immigrants and muslims. It addresses the Neo-Nazi ideology held by the shooter

Tone and balance


 * Article is written from a neutral point of view
 * There do not appear to be any biased claims made by the editor
 * There is a lot of representation about the shooter's alt-right ideology, though the editor themself does not condone nor condemn the ideology.
 * Minority and fringe ideas are properly classified as such
 * The article is not persuasive

Sources and references


 * Facts are properly cited, with over 300 sources used in the entire article. There is only one error in the works cited page on the 119th source cited.  The error is that a named reference was invoked but never defined, meaning that the citation was likely misspelled.
 * Sources are thorough; because this was a recent event, most sources come from news outlets like CNN, the NZ Herald, and BBC. Though there are many works cited, the diversity of the sources seems limited.
 * Sources are current, spanning from 2019-2021
 * Sources appear to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors
 * Many of the sources are news coverage reports. It seems that some of the works cited are opinion pieces, for example, the 98th footnote links to an article written in the Atlantic drawing similarities between alt-right terrorism and extremist muslim terrorist groups.  The author of this source is using a persuasive narrative.  I think this article could use a lot more peer-reviewed sources.  It took a quick google search to find sources about the alt-right from peer-reviewed books.  Too many of the sources are websites or news coverage.
 * The links checked work properly

Organization and writing quality


 * Article is both clear and easy to read, but it is not concise.
 * Article has errors, and is not fully proofread. An example of an error found is under the "Gun Laws" section.  The sentence starting with "All legally obtained..." is missing the word "to" -- so the sentence reads "...their relevant ammunition were able be handed over..."
 * The article is organized with headers that make sense. However, the article is so dense that many of the headers and sub-headers don't seem relevant to the main topic of the article.

Images and media


 * The article includes a few images, but they are small and hard to discern. It would be better if the article had a few more images further down the page, starting with the heading "Related arrests and incidents."
 * Images are well captioned
 * Images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * Images could be made larger so the readers can make out the details.

Talk page discussion


 * The first comments on the talk page recommends splitting the article into different topics. Other comments below maintained that the topics themselves were relevant, but much of the writing on those topics was unnecessary, like repeating some of the specific details of the shooter's manifesto.  Other suggestions include removing irrelevant sources and changing the article title to "Christchurch mosque attacks."
 * Article is part of multiple WikiProjects and is rated B-class
 * Some of the comments appear to be a little aggressive, and others under "Terrorism" show bias. There is a known bias to always label white male shooters as "lone wolves" and "mentally ill" when in reality many white male shooters, including the Christchurch shooter, is linked to alt-right and Neo-nazi organizations and ideals.

Overall impressions


 * The article's overall status is a work-in-progress, but thoroughly cited and fleshed out. It seems to be a "complete" article by layman standards.
 * The article provides many sources and is extremely thorough in discussing the many related topics to the Christchurch shooting. It provides background for the shooter himself, as well as relevant ideologies that influenced the shooter.
 * The article could use more peer-reviewed sources, and while some in the Talk page believe the topics shouldn't be split, I think it would be easier to read if the article was more concise.
 * I would say the article is well-developed, but there is always room for improvement.