User:IllusiveAttic11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Enrique Angelelli

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic school for my entire life so a Catholic Bishop resonates with me on a personal level. I have also studied Henry Kissinger's foreign policy regarding other events in the world, but have never analyzed his policy regarding South American countries, so deepening my knowledge of the effects of his policy is an interest of mine. Beyond my personal interests I believe that there is a significant amount of information that can be added to this page.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * Yes the intro sentence briefly explains who Angelilli was, why and when he was assassinated.
 * Not entirely. The introduction touches on most of the subsections in the article but there are some latter sections of the article that are not mentioned in the introduction, such as the Homages to Angelelli.
 * Kissinger is mentioned in the introduction but not in the article at all.
 * I believe it is overly detailed in regards to Kissinger. I believe the introduction should be focused more on those who actually murdered Angelelli.

Content


 * Yes, the content is all relevant to the topic. The article goes off on tangents in some spots but it is to supply context.
 * Yes, the information is up to date.
 * All of the content written does belong but I believe there is some information missing about Angelelli's early life and Kissinger's policies. There is also more that can be added to the "Position of the Church" section.
 * I don't believe so. I would not consider the Church to be underrepresented, nor would I use that word to consider any victims of the Dirty War.

Tone and Balance


 * Yes the article is neutral in tone.
 * I don't believe that there are any super unbiased claims.
 * I think the viewpoint of those opposed to Angelelli are underrepresented in the article, but then again it is not an article about them. However, talking about them could supply context into the reason why he was murdered.
 * Yes, the "fringe viewpoints" are described as such within the article.
 * No, I do not believe the article is attempting to persuade the readers.

Sources and References


 * Not every fact is backed up by a reliable source. There are some statements of presumed facts that the site states need reliable sources attributed to them. So that is something that I can definitely do.
 * Yes, the sources that are provided are relevant to either Angelelli or the topic that is mentioned before the footnote.
 * Some of the sources are current, others were written a few decades ago.
 * I am not entirely sure. I looked into a few of the authors, other articles or sources are written by groups, and I wouldn't say that marginalized groups are underrepresented in the sourcing.
 * I think the sources that are used are all reliable. They are from peer reviewed books, reliable college sources, and/or Catholic organizations.
 * Yes the links work.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Yes, the article is clear and concise. The article does branch off at times to provide some needed context, however, I believe that a few of those tangents can be more clearly stated or organized.
 * No spelling or grammatical errors that I can find.
 * Yes, the paragraphs that follow a given subsection stay on topic for the most part, other than those parts that supply context.

Images and Media


 * Yes, at the end of the article, and in the side graphs, there are a few pictures or links to pictures.
 * The one picture that's actually on the Wikipedia page is labelled.
 * I believe so, I did a brief search of their image policies and I don't know why this wouldn't adhere to them.
 * Yes, the image is in a quickly accessible location that supplies good context, what Enrique Angelelli looks like.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There are only a handful of entries in the talk page. Somebody asked a question about a clarification on a year that was written in the article, but it was never answered, that was in 2018. That is the most recent post, besides Wikipedia stating that the article was now being edited by a student in a program (me).
 * It is part of the student wikiproject that I will be participating in to help contribute to the article.
 * We have yet to discuss Angelelli or the Dirty War in class.

Overall Impressions


 * The article is overall pretty developed. It covers why Angelelli was important, why he was killed, and the controversy surrounding his death.
 * The article strong in the section surrounding his death and his acclimation of the role of Bishop of La Roja.
 * The article can be improved in the sections about his early life and the Dirty War, as these sections are not that significant.
 * What is written is well developed, however, article could use some additions, citations, and rewording,