User:IntPolCC/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: Breakup of Yugoslavia
 * I chose this article because the Breakup of Yugoslavia is an interesting topic to me, and the article has lots of area to improve on.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 has a well written introductory topic. The Lead for this article seems to be longer than other articles, but I suspect that it is due to the political turmoil in Yugoslavia during that time. There are parts in the Lead that are not talked about anymore in the article such as the creation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia mainly under Josip Broz Tito, but this is still necessary to be in the Lead for understanding of the article. The Lead is not overly detailed, but it is longer than usual.

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
The article is relevant to the topic of international politics because there were many external factors to the Breakup of Yugoslavia such as UN peacekeeping efforts in Croatia and Bosnia, and how the US hosted ceasefire and peace treaties. The content is relatively up to date. The last edits were in August 2020, but they were only minor edits. No major information as been added to the article since 25 July, 2020. I am not sure if this would be considered missing content but I feel that it would be important to talk about the UN peacekeeping efforts in Croatia and Bosnia after the major conflicts. This article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. The history of this article is still underrepresented.

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
This article attempts to be equal. There are many arguments on the talk page about whether certain faction of the conflict such as Kosovo became independent during that time or later. I believe that most of these disputes are due to the political nature of the breakup. I do not see many claims in the article itself that are heavily biased towards one point or another. The article does not try to persuade the reader in favor of a position. It is hard to seem neutral in this type of article because of the context of this material. Both the Croatian and Serbian sides detail the opposing sides human rights abuses but never themselves. This equals out in the article however.

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
Most areas of this article are cited with reliable information. There is one spot in particular about the 1991 Macedonian independence referendum that does not have any sources at all cited. This would be a good area to cite. From reading the sources I gathered about the breakup and sources on Wikipedia, the sources are thorough about what occurred. Some sources are becoming dated. There are some sources from the 80s and 90s that could be updates. But I think that this is just because of when the event occurred. Not much new information is being written about today. Sources are from a range of different authors. Most links I tried do bring me to the books page. Most are behind paywalls.

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
The article is well-written. There are not many unclear points made about the breakup. There are some errors in the names of Slavic leaders that could be fixed. Some are not spelled in the Croatian/Serbo-Croatian, etc. names. From the amount I read, there are no grammatical or spelling errors present in the article. The article is well organized. I still believe that it would be a good idea to put a section in about UN peacekeeping operations in the area after the breakup.

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
The images are very well used in the article. There is a GIF of how countries left Yugoslavia, pictures of leaders, and images of damage done by the Yugoslav wars. Pictures are well captioned including the names of leaders and who they were. All images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are spaced out very well. The images are placed next to the paragraphs where they are being talked about.

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
In the talk page there are arguments about the legitimacy of certain factions in the breakup, and if they should be represented in the article such as the RoK, a Serbian autonomous zone in Croatia during the conflict. This article is rated an S. I did not see this article in the WikiProjects section.Wikipedia Mainly focuses on the historical events of this topic rather than the politics themselves and what they meant. There is still some analysis of the politics such as during Slobodan Milošević's rise to power.

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
Overall, this article is well done, but still has need some information added about UN efforts in the area. The article is successful in presenting the conflicts in a well detailed manner. This article could be improved with more recent citations and there are parts that need to be cited in the first place.

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: