User:Jonterc/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: (link) Wounded Knee Massacre
 * I chose this article because I'm taking a history class on the Civil War and Industrialization, and we're going to be reading a book about Wounded Knee.

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's introductory sentence is concise and aptly describes the event. The following paragraphs briefly chronicle the event, using a sufficient amount of detail without being too verbose. Everything in the lede is elaborated a little further in the article, which is helpful.

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 content is relevant and up-to-date. And it certainly addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations (Native Americans), detailing their perspective in each section.

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
- There's no attempt to persuade the reader at all here. It strictly presents the historical facts. The viewpoints are as represented as can be, given that they can only work from the primary sources available to them. There's no claims that appear heavily biased, though.

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
- The sources are current, and there are a lot of them. The article is coated with hyperlinks, which makes finding information very easy. The sources are thorough, and written by a pretty wide array of authors.

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
- It's organized chronologically, which is nice because the article is about a specific event. There are no grammatical or spelling errors, and it's relatively easy to read.

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
- There is a lot of information in the article, so the pictures are pretty small. They're strong pictures, though, and they definitely enhance understanding of the topic. They could be made slightly bigger, however.

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
- Most conversations deal with fixing certain words, like one user questioning the addition of the word "botched," which was never used by any of the references cited. There are a few WikiProjects present here, namely Native American ones and Military History ones.

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
- The article accurately portrays the event, while being sensitive to a traditionally underrepresented group (Native Americans). It's well-developed, and could really only be improved by making minor, almost trivial adjustments.

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: