User:HerbertFrancisco/Evaluate an Article

= SINKING OF THE RAINBOW WARRIOR - WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE EVALUATION =

Which Article Are You Evaluating?
Sinking Of The Rainbow Warrior

Why Did I Choose This Article To Evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I once read about this attack in high school for a research project I was conducting. I believe that this topic is important because it was an unjust attack conducted against the global non-violent environmental campaign Greenpeace. My preliminary impression of the topic did not consist of much detailed information, rather just the basics of what occurred.

- Does The Lead Include An Introductory Sentence That Concisely And Clearly Describes The Article's Topic?
The introductory sentence of the lead does include a concise and clear description of the articles topic. It includes brief information about the event, the actors involved, and also the date of which the event took place.

- Does The Lead Include A Brief Description Of The Article's Major Sections?
The lead does include a description of the articles major sections. The lead lays out brief descriptions about who was involved, the aftermath of the attack, the international implications, and view points of historic political figures of the time. If I was to suggest one minor change to make the lead better, it would be to include one sentence explaining that the Greenpeace is an international environment organization. The page does provide a link to the Greenpeace Wikipedia page, but I think it is necessary to at least include in the lead that is an international environment organization.

- Does The Lead Include Information That Is Not Present In The Article?
The content present in the lead is included and expanded upon in the article. From what I can tell, there is no information that is in the lead that is not in the article or referred to in the article.

- Is The Lead Concise Or Is It Overly Detailed?
The lead presents the topic in a concise manner, while still including details that are relevant for a solid overview of the topic.

- Is The Article's Content Relevant To The Topic?
Although a solid amount of detail is present in the article, it is all relevant and connects to the main topic.

- Is The Content Up-To-Date?
From my brief analysis it does seem as if all the content is up-to-date. The sources used within the article do span across a wide range of years, meaning that both old and newly published information about the event has been added to the article.

- Is There Content That Is Missing Or Content That Does Not Belong?
After evaluation of the article I do not believe that there is in any information that does not belong. As for information that is missing, I do believe that the article should include one sentence about what Greenpeace is as a whole. I feel as if the reader will better understand the topic at hand if this is present.

- Does The Article Deal With One Of Wikipedia's Equity Gaps?
This article is not in the realm of Wikipedia's identified equity gaps.

- Does It Address Topics Related To Historically Underrepresented Populations Or Topics?
For the most part, I would say that the topic at hand was not historically underrepresented in the media. The only way that the event was underrepresented, was the fact that the leader of the secret agent dive team that placed the bombs, Jean Luc-Kister, did not publicly apologize for his actions until thirty years later.

- Is The Article Neutral?
The information within the article is very neutral. The article approaches the topic in a way that explains simply the facts in an unbiased fashion.

- Are There Any Claims That Appear Heavily Biased Toward A Particular Position?
Within the article, in my opinion, there is no claims that seem to be heavily biased towards a particular position.

- Are There Viewpoints That Are Overrepresented, Or Underrepresented?
There aren't any viewpoints within the article are overrepresented or underrepresented. Once again, my only piece of critique is to maybe include a little bit more information on the organization Greenpeace and their target goals. This might further the understanding of why this attack took place in the point of view of the French leaders at the time.

- Are Minority Or Fringe Viewpoints Accurately Described As Such?
Throughout the article, are viewpoints are credited to whom they came from in a proper fashion. Wether they are a minority or fringe viewpoints is sort of subjective.

- Does The Article Attempt To Persuade The Reader In Favor Of One Position Or Away From Another?
This article approached the topic in a way that does not try and persuade the reader in favor of either position.

- Are All Facts In The Article Backed Up By A Reliable Secondary Source Of Information?
A lot of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source information, but quite a few of them are not. The ones that are not are listed below.


 * "The first bomb went off at 23:38, blasting a hole about the size of an average car. The agents may have intended the first mine to cripple the ship so that it would be evacuated safely by the time the second mine was detonated."[citation needed]
 * "Prieur and Mafart were identified with the help of a Neighbourhood Watch group, and arrested. Both were questioned and investigated. Because they were carrying Swiss passports, their true identities were discovered, along with the French government's responsibility."[citation needed]
 * "Another agent, Louis-Pierre Dillais, possibly the commander of the operation, was also never captured."[citation needed]
 * "The "breach of international law" aspect was referred to in all communications with the United Nations in order to dissuade any arguments from the French government that might imply justification for their act."[citation needed]
 * "Such an action would have crippled the New Zealand economy, which was dependent on agricultural exports to the United Kingdom."[citation needed]

- Are The Sources Thorough - Do They Reflect The Available Literature On The Topic?
The sources utilized in the article all seem to be thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. The article references many forms of reliable media including published books, websites, newspaper articles, news stories, and government documents.

- Are The Sources Current?
Considering the event that the article is on, the time span of the sources differ from current to past years. The sources go from news articles from the year off the event (1985), all the way to years as current as 2018.

- Are The Sources Written By A Diverse Spectrum Of Authors?
The sources used in the article do come from a diverse set of authors. Sources utilized come from authors of different sex, religion, occupation, media source, and area of research/study. The article's sources also take into account different nations publications. There is sources that are from France and New Zealand, as well as other countries.

- Do The Sources Include Historically Marginalized Individuals Where Possible?
The article doesn't really present any sources or quotes from/relating to any marginalized individuals. The sources that are cited and the quotes present in the article all come from people who are reliable or directly connected to the event in some way.

- Do The Links On The Page Work?
Yes, the links within the article all seem to work.

- Is The Article Well-Written - Is It Concise, Clear, And Easy To Read?
Yes, overall the article is very well written in my opinion. It is concise, clear and easy to read for anyone, even someone who has no prior background on the topic.

- Does The Article Have Any Grammatical Or Spelling Errors?
Upon my analysis, I did not see any spelling errors or grammatical errors. Within the talk page, concerns about specific grammatical errors or sentence structure problems have been addressed.

- Is The Article Well-Organized - Broken Down Into Sections That Reflect The Major Points Of The Topic?
The article is broken down into well-organized sections that reflect the major points of the topic. The authors of the page also did a great job splitting the paragraphs with the sections to reflect a slight change in subject. The only problem that I have with the sections is the title of the section labeled "France Implicated." I think this title could be improved to reflect the information within the section.

- Does The Article Include Images That Enhance Understanding Of The Topic?
The images within this article do enhance the understanding of this topic. Although, there is no image of the Rainbow Warrior as it was sinking. I would recommend including an image of this to further enhance the article if a proper image meets the copyright regulations of Wikipedia.

- Are Images Well-Captioned?
Yes, the images contained in the article are well-captioned and provide the reader with a further understanding of the visual.

- Do All Images Adhere To Wikipedia's Copyright Regulations?
The images used in the article do indeed adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

- Are The Images Laid Out In A Visually Appealing Way?
I find the images to be laid out in a visually appealing way. This question is once again sort of subjective to the viewers opinion.

- What Kinds Of Conversations, If Any, Are Going On Behind The Scenes About How To Represent This Topic?
Within the Talk Page a good amount of discussions are taking place. The discussions are mostly based on trying to cite certain aspects of the article that are currently insufficiently cited (List of these found above in the Sources And References section). The majority of the other discussions remove around clearing up certain quotes and whose POV they are from, and also removing certain information found on the article in the past.

- How Is The Article Rated?
The article is ranked in the C-class. The rating of its level of importance differs. It has three three Mid-importance ratings, two High-importance ratings, and one low-importance rating.

- Is It A Part Of Any Wikiprojects?
The article is a part of seven different Wikiprojects. These projects are listed below.


 * Wikiproject Crime
 * Wikiproject France
 * Wikiproject International Relations/United Nations/Law
 * Wikiproject Military History
 * Wikiproject New Zealand/Politics
 * Wikiproject Shipwrecks
 * Wikiprojecs Terrorism

- How Does The Way Wikipedia Discusses This Topic Differ From The Way We've Talked About It In Class?
This article has not been discussed in our Political Anthropology class.

- What Is The Article's Overall Status?
According to the ratings present, the rating of the article is rather mediocre. As mentioned early it has rating of a C-class article.

- What Are The Article's Strengths?
In my opinion the strengths of the article are listed below.


 * The article takes a very neutral standpoint on the topic at hand.
 * The article reflects POVs from both sides of the conflict in a proper manner.
 * The article utilizes a quite a diverse set of resources in terms of authors and media outlets.

- How Can The Article Be Improved?
In my opinion, as mentioned before, the article can improved in the ways listed below.


 * Adding a sentence to the lead section, or possibly elsewhere, diving a tad bit deeper into what Greenpeace is as an organization. Or at least mentioning it is a international environment organization.
 * Completing the citations that are currently needed or replacing the information with a source that can be cited.
 * Lastly, adding a picture that illustrates the actual sinking of the Rainbow Warrior that fits Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

- How Would You Assess The Article's Completeness - Is The Article Well-Developed? Is It Underdeveloped Or Poorly Developed?
Overall, I believe the article is relatively well developed. I do believe that if my suggestions for improving it were taken into account it approve the article slightly. But for the most part, referencing the information I have presented above, I of find this article to be rather well developed in at least understanding the basics relating to the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior.