User:Emmacohoon/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
3rd Michigan Infantry Regiment (Reorganized)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was going through the C-Class articles and I came across the Civil War which I always thought was fascinating since I was a kid. And then I found the Michigan Infantry Regiment and chose to look at that article.

Evaluate the article
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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? No
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

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
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it is the reorganized version.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, I would say information about what happened and the events that actually took place is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. Yes, I feel like there's not much information on this Regiment.

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? Yes, it gives historically accurate versions of events.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there is not.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No, these are just straight facts and data that came from the 3rd Michigan Regiment.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not. It simply explains the strength and casualties associated with this regiment.

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? No, they are not. According to the Wikipedia article there were a total of 165 fatalities. And According to National Park Service.gov, there were 249 fatalities.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No they are not, this is an article that offers very little information and should be updated.
 * Are the sources current? No, it's not current and is from the Civil War Article, and from notes from 1959.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They mentioned a commander but only mentioned one, and didn't go into detail about him and what he did for the regime.
 * 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 are much better articles written that give examples of the Michigan Infantry Regiment.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work.

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? No it is, it needs a lot more information. It's very short because there is not much information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I don't see any grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, it is not. I see the service and the total strength and casualties. But there is not other information listed on this Wikipedia page.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I see the Michigan state flag, and that is the only picture on the website.
 * Are images well-captioned? It captions the Michigan State flag
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No they are not that one picture is on the side of the article, and doesn't do much for the article.

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? Since this happened so long ago, I don't think there are much conversations concerning this topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes it is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the US state. It's been rated at stub-class and low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It needs a complete reboot and needs to be redone.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article explains the dates.of the events and some very surface level information, but that is it.
 * How can the article be improved? I would say that the article needs to dive into the events of the Michigan Infantry and give information on more people involved.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped and I say that it needs more information to make it a good article that could provide some information about this topic.