User:Jamespgj/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: Operation Teapot
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article covers the most important nuclear test in relation to Civil Defense. Within the series of tests, Operation Cue allowed Civil Defense authorities to test the effectiveness of shelters. Unfortunately, the article is very scarce on material relating to that particular test and Wikipedia automatically directs you to this particular article.

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 gives a very short overview of Operation Teapot and states that the information within the article is a summary table. There is no discussion of the article's major sections nor information that is listed later. Therefore, this Lead is very poorly detailed.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is only a summary table and within it, it does not give any real description of the tests. The article was last edited on November 15, 2019 with no substantial additions. The content is missing the general descriptions of the tests and information taken from the tests. In particular, Operation Cue, does have a small paragraph of information at the bottom of the article, but it is very generic with no full discussion of the test or why they were testing.

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 has a neutral tone in the content. There is not position made in the article because there is not enough information to form an opinion. For some of these tests, the public and official opinion is underrepresented as there is not discussion of the consequences or gains from the tests. The article does not persuade anyone.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts in the article are mostly not backed by secondary sources. The chart's notes are simply statements with no source material. At the bottom with the references, there are source links to a few secondary sources that do work. However, there are multiple references that link directly to primary sources.

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 small paragraphs are written well enough to voice a generic point on the tests. I do not see any spelling errors, but a few grammatical errors are present. The article is not well-organized. The massive chart a the top of the page eclipses the little information towards the end and is distracting since it does not contain much information.

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
This article contains one photograph and one video clip. They are not well captioned and do not enhance any understanding of the topic. They are not laid out in a particular way as they sit on opposite ends of the article. The photo is simply a mushroom cloud and the clip is from Operation Cue.

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
The conversations discuss the fact that the chart on the page in generated by another website run by an editor. Also they discuss adjusting the information on the nuclear tests but do not discuss the best representations. There does not seem to be enough information to talk about the representation. It is rated "Start-Class" with "Mid-importance". It is a part of the Wiki project Nevada. This topic is covered only in basic detail on Wikipedia while in class we would discuss the success/failures, political problems, and environmental impact.

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 severely lacking in information. The chart is poorly generated and too large to be convenient in research. The strength of the article is that it provides a decent overview for the amount of tests. It can be improved by adding additional information about the individual tests. There are several books about nuclear tests and the Federal Civil Defense Administration did publish booklets to explain the tests. The addition of more contextual information and a wider variety of tests would help understand Operation Teapot. This article is not well-developed and is very incomplete. The chart alone lists 14 tests but only 4 receive some type of information.

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:Operation Teapot