User:Jrichmond18/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: Mutual assured destruction
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article since it is a topic that we have discussed in class in terms of nuclear weaponry and strategy.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead describes the article and gives a general overview of the concept of mutual assured destruction.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead for this article includes all information that is present within the article. All major topics and ideas are discussed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is short and concise and is a great segway into the article.

Lead evaluation
In general, the Lead for the mutual assured destruction article is brief but gives a great overview of the topic. It is not wordy and gives a general background of the concept and the reasoning behind it. The only thing that the Lead is missing is a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is relevant to the topic and does not straw away from the point.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content on the mutual assured destruction page is as up to date as possible since the policy was predominately used from the end of World War II to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content missing from the article and all content belongs; no content that is out of place.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps in that it addresses the two main followers of the mutual assured destruction doctrine; the United States and the Soviet Union. The article is sure to not take one specific countries side and pays equal attention in both country's roles in the perpetuation of the doctrine.

Content evaluation
The article provided relevant content in describing MAD and does a great job of ensuring that both the Russian and United States perspectives are stated. Content is up-to-date, and content is relevant to the topic at hand.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral and as stated above in the content section, the article pays equal attention to both the Soviet Union and the United States. I very much liked how at the end of the article, there was a criticism section in which critiques are given about the doctrine.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? From my reading, it does not appear that there are any claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? In general, I believe that the section about mutual assured destruction in the early cold war was a bit underrepresented, and I would have like to have seen a bit more information since the early cold war era shaped the whole climate of world affairs until the fall of the USSR in 1991.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. The article gives the facts and nothing more to alter the reader's thoughts or feelings.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral, and claims that are made come from an un-biased position, which ensures that readers are not swayed in one direction or the other.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The article is not fully backed up by reliable sources and Wikipedia itself has issued a statement saying that more inline citations are needed for the subsection theory for example. Other sections, such as MIRVs do not have any sources sited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources that are provided do reflect the topic and are very thorough in providing insight into the doctrine of MAD. I personally liked the citations on the capabilities of nuclear weapons and the various delivery systems.
 * Are the sources current? The sources in the article are relatively current, most being from the late 1990s to the early 2000s. There are some sources that are from the late 2010s which, goes to show that the article is constantly being worked on and improved by the community.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. When looking at the sources, many authors are of the United States and Russian origin, allowing for greater accuracy and less bias. The sources do not include histrionically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The few links that I checked did, in fact work.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and references within the article are solid, however, there needs to be more inline citations in some sections, and some sections require more citations in order to be verified. Overall, a great start.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is well-written and easy to read. I personally did not have any trouble understanding the concepts that were described, and I feel that I have a better understanding of the concept of mutual assured destruction.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I read, the article does not 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? The article is well organized and broken down into chronological sections and concepts, which enables readers to find information quickly and easily.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is great and allows for easy reading and research on specific topics. There are also no glaring grammatical or spelling errors within the text,

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does have images that help readers understand the topic of MAD. For example, the pictures of the Boeing B-47b goes a long way in showing how the United States was up-arming its Air Force to enable greater first-strike capabilities.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, images are well captioned and provide insight into the historical significance of pictures.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Some of the pictures seem to be missing copy write tags but are adequately cited within the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are laid out in an appealing way and are placed on the page nicely.

Images and media evaluation
Images and media within the article provide readers with great insight on MAD. Images are placed nicely and are easy to view. However, some images are missing copy write tags, which is an issue.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Within the conversations tab, it looks that there has been a vote as to if the topic should be renamed mutually instead of mutual. Also, there has been continuous discussion over the criticism section and what relevant information should be provided and how the section should be formatted.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as a C and is a part of the WikiProject Cold War and the WikiProject Death groups.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The way that Wikipedia discusses the topic when compared to our discussions in class is that on Wikipedia, it focuses more on the concept itself and less on how it affects the international community at large such as smaller countries who do not play an active role in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page for the MAD article is very active and is used regularly to discuss necessary changes that must be made to the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is that it is not fully complete and requires more citations and references.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's strengths are that it does a phenomenal job of summarizing the concept of mutual assured destruction and how it influenced military strength for both the United States and the USSR. The article is also excellent in describing the various different weapon systems created in order to assure that each country followed the MAD doctrine.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could be improved by including more references and in-text citations. Also, the criticism section could be organized differently and needs much more citations to back up the claims mentioned.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? In terms of completeness, the article is very well developed and is on the right track to being an extensive source that readers can use to learn about MAD.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is very informative and is very encompassing of the doctrine of MAD. Some things to note are the lack of citations in some sections, and lack of copy write tags on some images. I believe this to be a great article and with some more editing and sources, can be a great resource for scholars to use in order to learn more about MAD.

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: