User:Jmarti64/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:16th Street Baptist Church bombing
 * I chose to evaluate this article because of the content. This is an interesting topic, and has a substantial amount of information already in the article. This article will provide useful analysis to understand the good and the bad parts of a Wikipedia article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * -Yes, the article states the bombing was attributed to an act of white supremacy. The article names four victims, and places the blame on the Klu Klux Klan (KKK).
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * -Yes, the Lead details different major developments in the beginning. There is a table of contents on the left side to provide users easy access to locate these topics. The Lead discusses the trial, aftermath, and interpretation in popular culture after the attack.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * -Yes, the Lead details different major developments in the beginning. There is a table of contents on the left side to provide users easy access to locate these topics. The Lead discusses the trial, aftermath, and interpretation in popular culture after the attack.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

-No, the Lead discusses the different topics that are covered in the article, and provides a brief summary of the events that transpired.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

-The Lead is concise. It contains five short paragraphs briefly discussing the content inside the article, and what kind of topics can be located in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

-Yes, the article focuses on not the emotional tragedy that happened, but the facts of the event. The article focuses on the attack itself, the victims, who committed the attack, how the attack was prosecuted, criminal justice developments, and ultimately popular culture interpretations after the attack.

Is the content up-to-date?

-Yes, no major developments have occurred since the article was published.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

-Perhaps the paragraph discussing a possible fifth conspirator. I think this information is unnecessary as there is not enough evidence to definitively say there was a 5th conspirator.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article neutral?
 * -Yes, the article maintains a neutral tone, and focuses on the facts of the event.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

-Yes, the sentence discussing Charles Morgan Jr. The author uses colorful language to describe whites during this time, and elevates Morgan to a higher position than he should through personal bias and language choice.

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

-Yes, the viewpoint of Charles Morgan Jr. is a bit much. Perhaps toning down the rhetoric in these sentences would improve the article.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

-No, the article does a good job of staying neutral in tone, diction, and (for the most part) focuses on the facts of the events.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

-Yes, the article uses sources from court documents, interviews with eyewitnesses, and scholarly articles that have analyzed the topic.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

-Yes, the article focuses on scholarly articles that have analyzed the event, and no further development has occurred on this topic.

Are the sources current?

-Yes.

Check a few links. Do they work?

-Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

-Yes, the article does not go into too much detail regarding a single topic. The article spreads out information evenly, and makes it easy for readers to consume.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

-No, although certain words and sentences could be changed or worded differently, there are no obvious errors.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

-Yes, the article is broken down into parts that reflect the table of contents, and not too much detail is given to a single point.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * -No, although there are some images, they hardly enhance the understanding of the topic at hand. The images provide quality background information, but more is needed to understand the topic fully.

Are images well-captioned?

-Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

-Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

-Yes, they are off to the side to reinforce points discussed in the 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?
 * -The conversation focuses primarily on the prosecution of those accused of committing the crimes, as well as the tragedy involved of those who died.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

-The article is rated C-Class and is not part of any projects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

-Wikipedia discusses the topic in a neutral point of view with the goal of informing, rather than convincing or changing people's viewpoints.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

What is the article's overall status?

-The article is rated C-Class.

What are the article's strengths?

-The article does a good job of staying neutral and providing facts of the events that transpired. The article tackles different developments from the original attack, the victims, prosecution, and popular culture interpretations.

How can the article be improved?

-The article can be improved by providing more information on the victims, and the motive of the attack. Sure white supremacy was a motive, but why that church, at that time, and why dynamite? The article could also benefit from more pictures perhaps of the crime scene. Also, some wording should be changed when discussing individual actors and activists.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

-The article is well-developed, organized, and succinct. It appears a lot of editing, conversation, and changes have been made to the article. While there are things that could be improved, the article succeeds in communicating 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: