User:Grizz99/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Antisemitism in Argentina

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.)

Stated briefly, I want to do this article because antisemitism is a controversial and important topic that I find interesting and want to learn more about. Antisemitism matters because it is still prevalent today, and targeted individuals and societies are dramatically impacted by it. My preliminary impression of the article was that it is missing vital historical inquiry into the topic. The current article does a good job of discussing contemporary antisemitism in Argentina, but almost completely neglects any discussion of antisemitism in Argentina prior to 1990. To understand antisemitism in Argentina, historical inquiry as well as contemporary knowledge are needed.

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.)

Lead Section

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic?

No. The lead section makes a statement that is concise but not clear on the article's topic.

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 should not)''

The lead makes the broad assertion that antisemitism is an important issue for jews in Argentina and for the country of Argentina, but the article does not specifically discuss this claim in the article.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Neither.

Content

Is the article’s content relevant to the topic?

Yes.

Is the content up-to-date?

Yes.

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

The article is exclusively contemporary, so it is missing the a potentially rich history of antisemitism in Argentina.

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

I am unsure whether to classify jews as a historically underrepresented population or not. However, it is clear that the topic of antisemitism is not underrepresented or underdiscussed. At our library alone I was able to locate multiple monographs on antisemitism in Argentina.

Tone and Balance

Is the article neutral?

Yes.

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

Only one claim to me appears biased. The author states the following: "On the other hand, it is believed that most antisemitic activity in Argentina stems from anti-Israel movements of militant Islamists and radical leftists, rather than from neo-Nazis." This statement could have been taken from a pro-Jewish source with institutional bias against Muslims.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?

Historical inquiry into antisemitism in Argentina is non-existent, and thus underrepresented. The article is properly, not overly, represents contemporary antisemitism in Argentina.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

No.

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

No. The article primarily describes incidents of antisemitism with no persuasion attached.

Sources and References

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No. Many of the sources are from organizations, one of which being a Jewish organization, which are less reliable because these sources are openly biased.

''Are the sources thorough? Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?''

No. Most of sources are from short articles on websites, and include no scholarly literature.

Are the sources current?

Yes. The sources are current enough.

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

The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors, but many of the author's are Jewish, a historically marginalized group of individuals.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

Yes. All of the sources I plan on using are scholarly monographs or articles.

''Check a few links. Do they work?''

Most work, but some do not work.

Organization and Writing Quality

''Is the article well-written? Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?''

The article has qualities of a well-written article, but ultimately is not well-written because it neglects crucial historical inquiry.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.

''Is the article well-organized? Broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?''

The sections do not reflect the major points of antisemitism in Argentina, but they do reflect what the author was trying say about antisemitism in Argentina.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The only image included is of the star of David, which is the symbol of Jews. I am not sure it enhances understanding of the topic of the article because antisemitism is the primary purpose of the article, not jews. As such, symbols of antisemitism may be more effective.

Are the images well-captioned?

Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations?

Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes.

Talk Page Discussion

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

No discussions are present on the article's talk page.

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

The article is rated as a start-class, and part of the Argentina and Judaism wikiprojects.

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

We have not discussed antisemitism in Argentina as of yet.

Overall Impressions

What is the article’s overall status?

The article's status is a start-class.

What are the article’s strengths?

The article uses clear language, and provides a good picture of contemporary antisemitism in Argentina.

How can the article be improved?

As reiterated many times prior, the article desperately needs historical inquiry into antisemitism in Argentina; specifically in the twentieth century.

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

The article is underdeveloped because it discusses a small time period of a topic with a large period of time.