User:Hrbrod/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Opium Wars
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.       I have chosen this article to evaluate because I remember learning about the Opium Wars in World History.


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?  No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, as it does not really focus a lot on the view point of the Chinese in terms of the Opium Wars. The article does link to the History of Opium Use in China, so that could be where further information is found regarding their viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they reflect reliable literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Some are but not all of them.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?    No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?    Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?   Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?  Yes, the captions under the pictures are very detailed.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?  Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The only closed discussion that is present is the merging of the First Opium and Second Opium War articles, in which they were merged together into this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?  This article is a part of the WikiProject Drug Policy.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?   We have not discussed the Opium Wars in great detail but the idea of opiate addiction (and drug addiction in general) is a major talking point in criminal justice.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?  I would say this is a solid article with good status.
 * What are the article's strengths?   It has a complete list of sources, in various formats.
 * How can the article be improved? I would try to find more information and make it longer so there is more detail. It is on the shorter end in terms of a Wikipedia article relating to a historic time period.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: