User:Luke Lofro/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * 1989 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt


 * Article Evaluation
 * Start-Class, Mid importance
 * The lead section is either the entire section or it does not exist, this article is not separated into subcategories rather has one section encompassing everything. The content that is there is accurate, however there is no mention of the lead up to the coup attempt or the aftermath. The article maintains a neutral point of view and tone. The sources are mainly news paper articles at the time talking about the coup, it does not have databases sources or peer reviewed articles. The article has one picture of Ethiopia on a map of Africa. There is no Talk-page discussion. My overall impression is this article could benefit greatly from additions from databases and peer-reviewed articles. The article needs subsections to further separate and expand upon different distinct ideas.


 * Sources
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/17/world/ethiopia-coup-attempt-reported-authorities-say-revolt-is-crushed.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/18/world/coup-in-ethiopia-seems-to-be-a-failure-diplomats-say.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/19/world/ethiopia-leader-tells-of-execution-of-coup-figure.html
 * https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-22-mn-413-story.html

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party


 * Article Evaluation

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, too concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, what the party achieved, and their beliefs was not clearly defined.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, African political leaders.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? NO
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) There have to be because this article only uses one source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


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


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No


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

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No talk page talk
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class high-mid importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Barely developed
 * What are the article's strengths? Clear subsections
 * How can the article be improved? It needs more content particularly in what they did, notable figures, and philosophy.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Not developed nearly enough.
 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources