User:Jimmygotclass/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: Geneva Conventions
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I noticed that the existing article does not cover the right to a fair trial in great depth, and the talk page is requesting someone to add to it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


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

Lead evaluation
Sufficient

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * under the "breeches" subsection, a clarification needs to be made on the right to a fair trial when no crime is alleged, since certain groups, like soldiers, will not get a trial when arrested without being accused of a specific act. This is not a violation of the Geneva accords, however.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * no

Content evaluation
Somewhat lacking

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The experience of actual people or prosecutors who have had more hands on experience with the Geneva accords could potentially be underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
Unbiased and fair

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * somewhat
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It does not appear to have many authors who studies outside of Europe or Oxford University, although I do not think it is a huge issue that available literature is focused on generally affluent authors with a history of working in academia. Oxford also strikes me as particularly credible, so I believe any researchers from there would be thoroughly vetted to make sure that they are encompassing other viewpoints within their work.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation
sufficient

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, but the subsection about breeches of the accords is currently a series of bulletpoints, but I think it could also be effective if it separates each breech into a new sub category

Organization evaluation
Sufficient

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, but there are not many
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * From my understanding, yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes, although it would be nice if the images had some more color

Images and media evaluation
Good, but I might be able to add an image or two, since there are only 6 in the whole article

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * finding examples of breeches and contemporary violations of the accords
 * debates about the bias or slant of certain phrases
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-class
 * it is of high importance wot Wiki Projects International Relations/Law
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The debates on whether something is biased or not are far more technical than ones that we have been having throughout the course

Talk page evaluation
Lots of good ideas on how to improve the article!

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * it's very short, but effective. There are several ways that I can see myself editing it.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * brevity; it is easy to understand in a very simply explained way
 * How can the article be improved?
 * going into more depth on contemporary examples and clarifying common misconceptions
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Well developed

Overall evaluation
I am very interested in this topic, and believe that it is overall in need of more concrete examples where the Accords have been in use, and should include discrepancies where there is some flexibility in whether or not the Accords are violated

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: