User:Kwallet/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nazism in the Americas

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is an interesting topic that pertains to our class material. It has to do with the impact of Nazi ideology in the Americas, which falls in our time period and includes the United States.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section is concise and well organized, but the first sentence could be more specific and direct.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic. The information is relevant to the article, and seems to cover the major information, although there is likely information that could be included but is not. The page does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The content seems to be up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

This article is well-balanced and maintains a neutral tone throughout. It consists of facts rather than opinions, and includes information on both individuals who were pro-Nazism in the Americas as well as those who were against it.

Sources

This article includes many sources for its length; however, some of the sources are unreliable, such as Buzzfeed articles. There are a number of more recent sources, but many are older. New sources could be added to fill out the references, especially some more recent academic articles.

Organization and Writing

The article appears to be well organized and well-written. There are no obvious spelling or grammatical errors in the article. It is concise, easy to read, and progresses linearly.

Images and Media

All images are relevant to the topic and are well captioned, with identifying information in the caption.

Talk Page

There are not many recent conversations happening in the talk page besides a discussion on changing the name of the page to its current name. There is also a discussion about disruptive editing happening. It is rated as a C-class article and is a part of several Wikiprojects.

Overall Impression

It has a status of "article to be expanded". Its strengths include the concise nature and many links to pages with further information. It could be improved with better sources. I would call it underdeveloped.