User:Grackle.cackle/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Rohingya genocide

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am evaluating this article because it is directly related to my class (Anthropology of Violence). Also, I did a college class project on the Rohingya genocide for my Race and Ethncity in Global Perspective class like seven years ago, so I already have some familiarity with the topic and wanted to look at it again. This topic matters because it is about genocide, and all the reasons within that that are probably intuitive to the current audience. My preliminary impression of the article is that it's fairly good, in that it initially seems to meet the criteria I've been given for a good Wikipedia article. However, there are some issues which will be discussed below.

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.

The lead section of the article includes a concise and clear introductory sentence that defines the article's topic. It seems that the lead does include a brief description of the articles main sections in terms of describing the content, but doesn't explicitly lay out the outline as such. The information provided by the lead is discussed in greater detail throughout the rest of the article. The lead seems like it may lean on the side of containing a bit too much information, though in fairness the article itself is pretty long.

Content
The content of this article is definitely relevant to the topic. The content seems to be up to date, with a number of sources from 2022 and 2023. Though someone who knows more about this topic than me would be better suited to answer this question, there doesn't appear to be critical information included or excluded to my eye. I think it's definitely accurate to say that this article deals with historically underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance
The article appears neutral, in that throughout its various sections it highlights different dominant points of view about the topic and doesn't seem to contain fringe viewpoints without identifying them as such (though, to be fair, again, I am not the best person to evaluate this). I do think that the background section could have used more information about why, exactly, this violence is happening and what the justification is from the state. The article does not use language that feels persuasive in nature or intent, beyond sharing information that exists on the topic.

Sources and References
This article does have some issues with sources and references-- not all claims are backed up by credible sources and not all information is properly cited. The article is rather long, and there are still plenty of sources that do exist-- they seem to provide a fairly thorough overview of the topic and a number of them are from 2023. The sources that are provided are mostly a blend of news articles, reports from NGOs and nonprofits like Human Rights Watch, and academic articles. They seems to come from a fairly wide variety of places and sources. There are quite a few news articles, which on the one hand makes sense for a current event with active coverage, and on the other hand it's likely that many of those articles could be replaced by peer reviewed academic sources. All the links I checked seem to be in working order.

Organization and writing quality
The article is concise, clear, and easy to read. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors during my read through. The article seems to me to be pretty well-organized, with the information easy to find throughout the piece.

Images and Media
The article includes a number of images that provide context and richness to the discussion of the topic. The images all seem to contain captions (which could be more descriptive, per accessibility and understanding of the content). The images appear to be properly linked and cited and in compliance with copyright regulations. They are laid throughout the article skillfully.

Talk page discussion
Most of the talk page discussions are from years ago. The few current ones involve a discussion of whether or not the violence against the Rohingya people is actually genocide. The article is part of a number of WikiProjects related to human rights, crime, and Myanmar. The article is rated C-class. We haven't talked about this particular topic in class (much, yet).

Overall impressions
Overall, the article seems to be pretty good with a few things that can be improved. The strengths of the article is that it provides a large amount of well-organized and up to date information in a format that is overall easy to understand and read. The article has some citation / source issues that could be improved. Overall, I would call this article pretty well developed.