User:Insight411/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.


 * Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
 * Because we are writing our paper on a diplomatic immunity case, it is likely that the Vienna Convention is going to be one of the main sources as to whether or not the defendant qualified for diplomatic immunity.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence nicely sums up the results of the Convention. Everything in the Lead is present somewhere in the article, which is good. The Lead is also concise and gets to the point, making it easier to read and to understand. Finally, I believe that the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections. There isn't much of the historical context mentioned in the Lead, but I believe that the information included is sufficient to summarize the topic briefly.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content of the article is relevant and up-to-date, including information about South Sudan, which is a newer country. As far as I know, there isn't anything missing, although perhaps there could be more added to the article. Because 192 countries have ratified the treaty, there isn't much dispute, so I don't believe that a new section on the reception of the Convention should be included. Currently developing countries are mentioned in the article, and the article does not appear to be Euro-centric or focused solely on the Western world.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

I personally don't see any bias in this article, and believe it does a great job being neutral. None of the claims appear to be biased toward one side or another. However, I do think that the countries who did not sign the treaty should be discussed more, as their view isn't represented. Why did these countries not sign the treaty? Still, there is no attempt to sway the opinions of the reader.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Not all facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source. The entire History section does not include proper sources. The primary sources used in other sections, however, are thorough and reliable accounts, although not current because there are from the original 1961 text. The authors of the sources are only the authors from the treaty. However, the treaty was written by a diverse representation of authors, so it can be said that the sources represent historically marginalized individuals. The links work.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is extremely concise and clear, and it is easy to read and to understand. All in all, it is very well-written. I did not detect any grammatical or spelling errors. The organization of the article makes sense and is very logical. The sections are placed in the ideal spots for cohesion and ease of reading.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article only includes one image. The image is visually appealing and appears to not violate any copyright regulations, but it doesn't have a caption. I believe there isn't a caption purely because it is a map, and maps are a little different in format than images. The map is informative and enhances the understanding of the topic.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Conversations mostly surrounded correcting factually incorrect pieces of text, especially concerning South Sudan. Apparently, the map was once out of date and did not include South Sudan, but the error has been corrected now. The article appears to not have a listed rating, but it is part of three WikiProjects: WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Law, and WikiProject International Relations / law. We didn't really talk about this subject in class, so I don't feel that the discussion differs in any way from what we have discussed in class.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article appears to have less important status because the topic is less known. The strengths of the article are the concise way that it is written and also how readable the information is. The weaknesses of the article would be the lack of more sources and the need to add more detailed information. I think that this article is underdeveloped and could use some more editors to add more information.


 * 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?

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: