User:Imwesley/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: (2nd (West Africa) Infantry Brigade)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this c-class article because I have been interested in the impacts that international militaries have had on the continent. Especially since this British unit initially served in the African Campaign during World War II before being deployed to Burma later in the war.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead provides a very detailed yet concise overview in the first sentence of what the addressed article will be covering. But its first sentence is more of the merging of two sentences
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It did not give a brief description of the major sections since the only notable section was titled history.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It did not include any external information that was not detailed in the article but in fact provides an abstract of the key components about this unit's history
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Both the lead and the article itself seems concise and oversimplified given that this article only covered the brief history about the unit than presenting further insight about the unit overall.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Both the lead and the article itself seems concise and oversimplified given that this article only covered the brief history about the unit than presenting further insight about the unit overall.
 * Both the lead and the article itself seems concise and oversimplified given that this article only covered the brief history about the unit than presenting further insight about the unit overall.

Lead evaluation

 * The lead does provide substantial amount of summary and coverage of what is currently detailed in the article yet the article itself is very minimal in what it could be presenting if more information was provided.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of this article is closely related to the topic however, it has very minimal amounts of information other than providing the units brief history and involvement in World War II.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Given the section of history and its subsection on formations, the content does seem up to date in regards to the initial creation of the brigade and the broad overview of the unit's involvement under the British Empire during that time. But it should be noted that the article was last revised in June of 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a significant amount of content that is missing including the information in regards to the reasoning behind their inactivation following World War II and detailed reorganization during the war which was stated in the article. Additionally, there are no indications of their unit insignia/, detailed accounts of the operations/ battles that they have participated in, as well as the current structure/ organization they have been utilizing following the end of the war.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a significant amount of content that is missing including the information in regards to the reasoning behind their inactivation following World War II and detailed reorganization during the war which was stated in the article. Additionally, there are no indications of their unit insignia/, detailed accounts of the operations/ battles that they have participated in, as well as the current structure/ organization they have been utilizing following the end of the war.

Content evaluation

 * Overall, the content only provides a very minimalist overview about the history of the 2nd (West Africa) Infantry Brigade and has the capability to provide substantial amounts of knowledge about the unit which is currently missing from the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, this article provides a very informative structure detailing the aspects about the topic it has entailed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * All aspects of this article has no particular bias towards any position since there are very limited amount of evidence other than the history of the unit.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Due to the broad overview about the unit and its history, the article underrepresents the capabilities and contributions of this infantry brigade for its country and campaigns in the African and Pacific theater.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * This article only provides concrete knowledge about the unit that served during World War II under the British Empire.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * This article only provides concrete knowledge about the unit that served during World War II under the British Empire.
 * This article only provides concrete knowledge about the unit that served during World War II under the British Empire.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * As a very informative article in regards to a military unit from the past, there was a great neutral tone exhibited throughout the article but a lack of balance due to the lack of additional information encompassed under this topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The references that were cited at the bottom of the article are very credible sources since they were authors who compiled critical information encompassing the British military from the early to mid 1940s.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They do reflect the military history that was published by these authors in regards to the actions taken by the British military during all of their campaigns during the Second World War.
 * Are the sources current?
 * In comparison to contemporary times they could be viewed as dated, however all three sources presented updated information since the sources ranged from the 1980s to mid 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The one link they provided does work and the other references are books with their ISBN which I could not directly confirm.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The one link they provided does work and the other references are books with their ISBN which I could not directly confirm.
 * The one link they provided does work and the other references are books with their ISBN which I could not directly confirm.

Sources and references evaluation

 * There is substantial and credible references that were used for this article and could always use more as each new historians and researchers find more and more information about the topic at hand.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article was well written and clear/ concise in providing a fundamental baseline of what this unit was and what its impacts were.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were a few grammatical errors but not enough for it to be a difficult/ confusing read for the viewer.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is well organized with the given information it provided but could have been elaborated if there were more content to be distinguished into further sections.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is well organized with the given information it provided but could have been elaborated if there were more content to be distinguished into further sections.

Organization evaluation

 * The organization is acceptable given the condition that they were only able to cover the history and formation of the given topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images for this topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable
 * Not applicable

Images and media evaluation

 * The only evaluation I have for this section is how the article is bland from aesthetically pleasing images of the battles they have fought in and the insignia that represented their unit.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no conversation in regards to this topic other than the creators edits to the external links being modified.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Within the three Wiki Projects that it is a part of, Wiki Project Africa, Military History and United Kingdom, this article was rated as either C-class or C-class, low importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It is difficult to pinpoint a difference between the talk on this topic and that discussed in class since there have been no actual users who have viewed and offered their insight on this article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It is difficult to pinpoint a difference between the talk on this topic and that discussed in class since there have been no actual users who have viewed and offered their insight on this article.

Talk page evaluation

 * The talk page was a great means to see any discussion and modifications that were made on the topic, however, there are no other discussion/ talk other than the creators modifications to the article in 2017

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The articles overall status as a C-class article is well deserved as this article provides minimal information about the topic and has room to grow if properly researched.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It provides a summarized history of the unit's involvement in World War II in Africa and Burma which makes the viewer to gain a quick overview about the topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could provide more sources pertaining the actual battles they were involved in, any notable soldiers outside of the commanders and visual aesthetics pertaining their insignia or motto as a unit.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems underdeveloped and could be expanded upon with insights from other primary or secondary sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems underdeveloped and could be expanded upon with insights from other primary or secondary sources.
 * The article seems underdeveloped and could be expanded upon with insights from other primary or secondary sources.

Overall evaluation

 * This article offers a very conceptual and broad understanding of the topic discussed which could have been more elaborated upon if the creator or other users provide additional sources to expand the structure of the article

Optional activity (Did not do)

 * 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: