User:Explorer300/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Mexico–United States border

Lead section
The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the lead is rather short and focuses possibly too much on the physical characteristics of the border without addressing some of the other significant aspects of the border that the article covers. Just reading the lead for this article does not really highlight the most important things about the topic.

Content
The article's content is relevant to the topic, and the content seems to be largely up-to-date. It could possibly use some updates to include information from the previous couple of years, but the information present is still relevant. The article does not appear to be missing any content, and it also not appear to have unnecessary content or content that does not belong. The article addresses an issue that is quite large in U.S. politics, and does a good job at giving both historical and present-day context.

Tone and Balance
This article does take a neutral tone when presenting content. It does not appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position either, and does not have any claims that do such. There also doesn't appear to be any view points that are overrepresented nor underrepresented. Some sections of the article are longer than other sections, but it doesn't appear as a purposeful over or underrepresentation so much as the necessary information and the necessary length to communicate that information. The article also does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another. It comes across as very objective.

Sources and References
Most of the facts are backed up with reliable secondary sources. There are some sections in which Wikipedia has recommended the addition of more sources, which I would agree with, as in these sections there are some facts presented without thorough citing. However, there are still many sources cited for this article, and it seems reliable. The sources are current, but some of them could probably stand to be more current, as they are a few years old, and with a topic like the U.S.-Mexico Border, there is almost always new and more recent information being put out. The links embedded within the article do work as well, which is good. There are some better sources available for some of the information, and there are some sections that could use some diversification in the sources they are relying on.

Organization and writing quality
The article is well-written. It is pretty concise and clear, and it is an easy reading experience. There weren't any grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed as I read the article, but there were a few things that I might word a bit differently. The article is well-organized into sections that address the major points of the topic, and these sections are easy to find and read.

Images and Media
The article does include images that enhance the understanding of the topic and help to give some visual context to the information being presented. The images are well captioned, and they are well-organized such they are frequent enough, but they are not overbearing or detract from the words of the article. I believe all the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion
It seems that there are some informational issues that people have pointed out about this article who have more information and knowledge regarding the topic than I do. The article is rated a C. It appears to be of interest to or a part of some WikiProjects. This article provides a very objective overview of the topic, and does not particularly analyze the information or its implications as would be done in class, but this is understandable given the confines of Wikipedia.

Overall impressions

 * 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?

The article's overall status is C-Class. The article does a good job at providing lots of informations and including images that relate to that information, as well as utilizing a neutral tone in presenting the information. The article could use more articles and citation of those articles in certain sections, which would help add to the strength and credibility of the informations being presented. It also seems that some of the information needs revision. The article could also do well to include some more recent information regarding the topic. Overall, the article seems well-developed in its planning and organization, but could use more development regarding its sources and citations, as well as its lead.