User:LoganPaulLover/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
They shall not pass

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am extremely interested in history and the content in this article purely focuses on graphic designs during a crucial moment in the modern era. I had a reasonable impression of the article. I think it summarized the information rather well, but was lacking in areas such as the propaganda poster itself and possibly the creator.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: Starting out, the article has an exemplary introductory sentence. It is concise and clearly establishes what the main idea is without branching too much into unrelated subjects. The lead encompasses a very quick description of the other sections that flows very nicely between statements. The links in the lead are helpful if redirection is necessary for someone who may need some more information before proceeding. Along with the links are translations which give the reader a helpful understanding of foreign usage.

Content: The overall content in the article is what was referenced previously in the lead and a little extra. The information was relevant and mostly up to date. Since the French saying "They Shall Not Pass" has largely fallen out of popularity, most of the information comes to a grinding halt before the 21st century. This article covered a very expansive timeline which helped paint a picture of the saying's use and created a larger understanding for the audience. There isn't any content that does not belong, but it is missing information about the different pictures used. The article included some information about who made the objects in the photos, what year they were made, what they looked like, and what the translation was. Potential affects, existing copies, and extent of distribution would be valuable information to add if it can be found.

Tone and Balance: This article is extremely neutral. Since the topic is so simple and lacks any kind of modern day controversy, there's not much to discuss in regards to viewpoints. It does go over multiple political parties and their use of the phrase, but the article comes at it from a completely unbiased standpoint that it feels as if there is no push at all to one side or the other. This is of course ideal for a wikipedia article. There is no detectable persuasion and most sides are discussed equally with straight facts.

Sources and References: The sources and references are not as good as they should be. This is likely due to the rarity of the subject matter and its small impact. Almost all the facts are backed up by sources, but not all of them. After some close inspections, it appears that the section on Romania does not have any sources to back it up. However, of the sources that are available and cited, they do cover as much information as possible and are as current as they could be. Most of the sources were produced in the 1990s with some outliers. A large chunk of the sources came from French authors and not many from marginalized people/groups. These articles were a mix of news stories, newspapers from the past, primary sources that are decades old, autobiographies, and a few scholarly research papers. Some of the sources are eye witness reports. Lastly, of the sources that are linked, not all of the links are still functional.

Organization and Writing Quality: The writing quality is about what someone should expect from a professional wikipedia article. It is smooth and concise. There are multiple parts that can be a little tricky to read especially in the "origin" and "later use" sections which, to the authors credit, are well defined and organized.

Images and Media: There are some interesting pictures in the article. They provide wonderful and visually stunning real world examples of the subject matter. Although the pictures are beautiful, the captions are not. The first image has excellent information behind it, but the second one and all the photos in the gallery section have surprisingly little. A slight description of the object or a translation of the phrase on it. The captions need a lot of work. From my understanding of Wikipedia's copyright rules, the images meet all the requirements.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page is rather entertaining for this article. There are some insults being directed towards some users. A lot of discussion about the Lord of the Rings series. All in all there seems to be some sort of heated discussion behind this article. The different contributors seem to be arguing about how the Lord of the Rings series should or should not be mentioned in the article due to its use of the main subject matter. Aside from the discussions/arguments, this article is part of 3 Wikiprojects (Wikiproject France, Military history wikiproject, and Wikiproject Socialism) that gave it three different categories of rating: B-class, low importance, and Start-class. In class we are focused on modern effects. The discussion is of the same breed even if it is more selective.

Overall Impressions: The article's overall status would be in the lower to middle. The article covers a wide range of information on an expansive timeline but fails to go into deep detail about most of it. Not all of the facts are supported by sources and the ones that are could be better in some circumstances. Some concrete evidence on the historical figures and dates would improve the quality significantly. It will be easier for someone to check the information. The sources could also be from more scholarly and peer-reviewed articles instead of new sources. Some sources have also been blacklisted or do not work anymore. These should be replaced with more reliable sources. Lastly, the captions under some of the images have only a single short sentence. This is not enough to explain the context and/or history behind some of the pictures. This article is very underdeveloped and could benefit greatly from better sources. Although I am fascinated by this topic, it is not up to par and needs more time if it is being read and studied thoroughly. As an introduction to the topic, it does a decent job. The article hits most of the major points.