User:JRVU12345/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: Dakota War of 1862
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it means something to me. Having grown up in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area, I spent a lot of time in High School and even late Middle School learning about the Dakota War of 1862 and the horrific events that took place leading up to and after the war. It is incredibly important to me that the information is relevant, correct, and available to any curious reader.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory section of the lead is pretty good. It gives all relevant names and presents the timeline while naming the belligerents accurately. The lead section contains a good overview of the individual sections and primes the reader for what they are about to read. The lead does not contain information that is not present in the article, but rather the lead is slightly too detailed in my opinion.


 * 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 article itself is up to date and includes a lot of relevant information. There was an issue that compared the Dakota raid to the events of 9/11? Horrible comparison and very insensitive. The lead section failed to note the 38+2 who were killed in the largest execution by the US government in history, but the content sections make note of this. The content is very full of relevant information and does not include extraneous information that draws away from the article. It is clear there has been a recent-ish cleanup of the article.


 * 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

Tone is great - especially after the removal of some comments such as the 9/11 comparison. There is not a heavily biased claim in the article and it presents the facts from a neutral point of view. There are definitely a little more emphasis on Dakota attacks, but the section before the warfare does a good job positioning the information with how land was taken. It does not reflect poorly either way. There is no attempt at persuasion.


 * 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

Sources are great. One of the shining features of this article. Almost everything is linked and the books include (largely) an ISBN number for those interested in reading further to look up or find at libraries or bookstores. The sources are current and feature historians from both Native and White Minnesotan backgrounds. The links I checked do work and are still active.


 * 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

Article is concise as it can be given the intricacies. The article is both easy to follow and easy to read. Grammar wise, there are not any issues I found. I thought it was pretty well written and organized. It was broken down so that each event, even leading up to the war, was given it's own subsection. This allowed me to better grasp the events. Well organized and well written.


 * 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 images are awesome. It includes photographs and art that is relevant to the topic of the article. Images are very well captioned and actually assist with the understanding of certain sections. They are not distracting, but rather inviting after reading a subsection.


 * 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

The article is very active in the talk page. People mention the changes they make and there is quite a bit of discourse surrounding what should be and should not be added. It is nice knowing that many people have read and criticized the article. It is rated "B", though I think it deserves a better ranking. It is part of multiple WikiProjects. We have yet to cover this war 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 is ranked a "B", but I think it is better than that. I thought it was well discussed in the talk page and the information was relevant and up to date. Some of the strengths include accurate and available citations, holistic viewpoints from both parties, and great image use/placement. The article could be improved by adding some more information and by adding some additional pages that the article references a few times. I think the article is pretty complete, although some polishing touches could be applied.


 * 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: Talk:Dakota War of 1862#University Class Evaluation< https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dakota War of 1862#University Class Evaluation&data=02|01||abc8724866d1414f00e708d8631ff12d|ba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad|0|0|637368336121180038&sdata=OAmkqof7Kf+EItoo0cP0hxK/M0f/lwE8n5krHQfFzUo=&reserved=0>