User:InnerSloth/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: Critical terrorism studies (Critical terrorism studies)
 * I chose this article as terrorism has always been very hot topic in the media and the concept of terrorism studies interested me. Also, the article had a good amount of content I could review.

Lead

 * Guiding question


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does a great job in describing the article and defining what it will be talking about in a very concise paragraph. It quickly goes over all of the main points and presents it in a way that is easy to understand for anybody.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
One thing I did notice was that the references were all relatively old so it probably means that the article hasn't been updated recently. While there are a couple citations from 2016 or 2014, this article could probably use a look-over. However, this doesn't mean that the information in the article is wrong or not relevant. I believe the writers did the best they can tackling a huge topic like terrorism. The content was written in a manner that could be understood, there doesn't seem to be any major content gaps (will be partly because I do not know much about the topic as well), and the content doesn't deviate from its main goal.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article remains relatively neutral in the fact that it doesn't try to push a certain agenda down the reader's throat. However as I was reading the article, it felt like the article was definitely showing these critical terrorism studies in a positive manner. One section that could be added is a critique on CTS itself. While the article does a fine job in talking about how this theory approach came about and how it critiques traditional terrorism studies, it wouldn't hurt the article to represent the other side (against CTS).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
While I already talked a little bit about the references in my content evaluation, I will reiterate the point that some of the sources are quite old; there were no sources past 2016. However, the sources that were present do seem reliable as a lot of them are actually research papers. The references were also from a wide range of places from research papers to books to even youtube videos. I also tried to check if some of the links worked and all of the ones I clicked on were valid.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Most of this was mentioned already but I thought the article was concise, clear, and easy to read for the regular individual. From what I saw, there seemed to be little to no grammar or spelling errors. The organization was also well done as everything that was mentioned in the lead section was broken down into cohesive parts.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There were actually no images in this article. Personally, I feel like this was fine as I can't think of any images that would actually help a person's understanding of this article. The only pictures that could work are ones where the reader can see the critical terrorism studies in action but I assume those are very hard to find as this seems like a niche concept. As a result, I do not fault this article for not having any images because I don't know how much they would help in the first place.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There were only two messages in the talk page. First of all, it seems like this article was "the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment" so I am assuming this was actually written by students. Secondly, it hasn't been rated for its quality or importance yet. Lastly, I doubt we will ever talk about this topic in class as it is so niche; we might touch on terrorism but I don't think we will touch on CTS.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
I think the article was written very well by students. It was very good at hitting the strengths of CTS and describing its background and its uses. One thing I mentioned previously that could improve this article is elaborating more on the criticisms on CTS and why traditional terrorism studies may be better in certain cases.

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: