User:Gopp22/Evaluate an 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?

It does, although the title is somewhat general / vague. In the introductory sentence it seems that "Germans of Yugoslavia" is based on German-speakers only (linguistic based), and that Yugoslavia is noted as comprising of the now separate countries of former Yugoslavia.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, it jumps right to History (one of the major sections), so one has to scroll down to see what the sections will be and how long / how many sections and subsections there are).

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?

It is concise.

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 covers the inception of the migration of German ethnic peoples into former-Yugoslavian regions through the significant events post WWII, and the article contains a "current situation" section. The article was last contributed to on 12/30/2023 so one would assume it's up to date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There could be mention of other things included as it's a short article, but it is a succinct, rather concise and complete overview.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

It relates to ethnic minorities and in the Talk area it says that the article is part of one to improve the coverage around Germany on Wikipedia, but that is all I can tell in terms of a gap in research.

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.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, it seems neutral. However it's rated as a Start-Class article per the Talk section, so perhaps it is not as reliable as it seems at first read.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

There is no discussion of minority or fringe viewpoints. I think that in this topic, the "controversial viewpoint" would be that of pro-nazi Germany viewpoints (ethnic Germans who during WWII sided by the "right" way of thinking with the pro-nazi Army at the time and whose lives were spared), and this article does not cover those viewpoints.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

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?

Yes, there are scholarly secondary sources attached to claims.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

There could be more sources (there are only 6, but they are historical reference textbooks and other historical overviews).

Are the sources current?

Yes, up through 2020 published sources.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There could definitely be more sources - they are not many and not highly diverse but the subject matter is pretty niche specific.

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 did find other sources around this topic but that would mean that this short Wikipedia page would have to have more content to it to really incorporate the sources I referenced.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, links that were there for sources did work, but not all sources had links. Upon search, the sources were valid however.

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?

Yes.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Not that I could tell.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, it is very short but organized clearly.

Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The only image in the article is that of the apparent "German Minority" flag based on the SFR (Socialist Federal Republic) Yugoslav Minority flag that was used from 1946-1992. This doesn't really enhance the understanding of the topic because in order to understand what the flag is, you have to dig deeper into how and when the image was created. It is seemingly politically biased perhaps in that this image was something that refers specifically during a particular political time. That is, the article is about Germans in Yugoslavia who, if outside of the "post WWII, pre-dissolution of Yugoslavia" era, would not be using this flag. Is this flag actually something that was used during this time? By whom? This image creates many questions for me and I find it not a good use of representation for the article. I understand that the idea is a combination of German (German flag colors) and Yugoslavia (socialist-era star of the Yugoslavian government of the specific years), but Germans in Yugoslavia existed without political affiliation hundreds of years prior to the political upheaval in the region and post 1992 in the region. So I would say this image is very misleading in terms of the article's content.

Are images well-captioned?

The image says "Flag of the Yugoslav Germans" so not really. I would like more information in the caption itself. I think the caption is misleading.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Seemingly so, when the image is opened up and more information about its creation and terms of use can be read.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/A - it's just one image at the top of 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?

In the Talk section there is only a comment from 2008 noting that the section on Slovenia is vague and that more specifics are needed and another comment from 2015 asking for more expansion of ethnic Germans during WWII and post WWII as they were not expelled from the country as in other countries like Poland. Neither comment has any response.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

According to the Talk section, this is an article that is part of expanding the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia via the WikiProject Germany, as well as part of a project to expand the coverage of Yugoslavia (WikiProject Yugoslavia). For both projects, it is a Start-Class rated article and noted as low importance.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

N/A - we have not discussed this topic in class.

Overall impressions What is the article's overall status?

This is a start-class page and therefore not highly reliable.

What are the article's strengths?

It adds to an area of research that is in needed content on Wikipedia and is generally objectively written.

How can the article be improved?

More sources could be used, better imagery, ultimately more rich content with citations.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It is underdeveloped.

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. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

I am not sure what the reference to a famous painting is?

Which article are you evaluating? (Provide a link to the article here.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_of_Yugoslavia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I am researching the Danube Swabian ethnic group as it is relevant to my thesis. The history of the ethnically German people is something that has not been highly researched except in specific groups with often specific slants or agendas. Linguistically and culturally, ethnic Germans were (at least in Serbia) quite different than Germans. I have read some articles on Wikipedia but there are not many. I chose this to see what if anything this article could provide. Much of the content here was very general and a repeat of content in the other couple pages I have found, with this article being more simplistic than others.

Evaluate the article (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article was a very simplistic overview of Germans in former Yugoslavia and in the overall region today. Although the article went into detail as to the ethnic background and history of the people in the region, the title is misleading as Yugoslavia no longer exists and yet the article spans for many years before and after the existence of Yugoslavia. The image, as well, is from a specific time period in which Yugoslavia existed as a political and national bordered geographic region. Perhaps the article should only focus on the timeframe in which this time period existed, or it might be beneficial to change its title and image.

The article also defines Germans in Yugoslavia as those speaking German, even though it explains the history of the migration of the ethnically German people. From my knowledge of ethnic Germans, particularly in the area of Serbia, they did not speak a German as we know it today. Their language was a German of maybe 400 years ago, much like Old English might sound to us today as English speakers, with a borrowing of words from regions such as Hungary and Serbia and other areas where they lived. Culturally, ethnic Germans differed from Germans, from my own knowledge, so this article could benefit from more research, more sources, and more clarification around some of the nuances of the culture of the people known as Germans in Yugoslavia.