User:Mfarooqi20/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
British investment in Argentina

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This is the article I will be editing for my Wikipedia project.

Evaluate the article
 Lead section: 

While the lead section is concise and does briefly mention the topics in the article, the first sentence is not very neutral. Rather than describing the contents of the article, the first sentence puts forth an original opinion (as there is no citation). This continues through the paragraph. There is also a whole section on President Rivadavia's policies on foreign investment in the article, but no reference to him specifically in the lead section, while President Peron gets a mention in the lead section even though his name is not even in any of the subsection titles. Also the lead section briefly mentions imperialism at the end, when the article has an entire section titled as hegemony. I think the lead section could have had a whole sentence about British hegemony, and that it should have used the word hegemony and not imperialism, because it would make it easier for the reader to use the lead section almost as a table of contents if the sentence topics and key words used in the lead section matched the headings and section titles in the actual page.

 Content: 

This article’s content is relevant to the topic. In terms of up to date-ness, I don’t think the article is missing any themes when it comes to the history of british investment in Argentina, but technically speaking, a section on what British investment in Argentina looks like today, or any lasting impacts of historical british investment on present day Argentina could be something to include. Another approach might just be to change the article title to better reflect the scope of the article, and title it “history of british investment in argentina”.

I think some content that is missing could be how British foreign investment played out in historical political rhetoric during the elections of the leaders mentioned, and also any impacts of British investment on society (in terms of cultural changes/”modernization”, and how people felt about it.

I think this article could better address equity gaps and look into how Indigenous people’s interacted with or were impacted by British foreign investment.

 Tone and Balance: 

This article is not entirely neutral, as someone on the talk page mentions, it makes arguments about the effectiveness of investment without citing sources. The article does use a lot of subjective language, inserting opinions about the topic often.

I wouldn’t say that the article overtly attempts to persuade, but it definitely makes the claim that investment was not successful at first and does not cite or explain that claim.

 Sources and References: 

Not all claims are backed up by citations, and some of the sources are from a couple of years ago while others are from 20 plus years ago, so there could definitely be some more current/more recent citations.

 Images and Media: 

There are not many images and could be more.

 Talk page discussion: 

There is not too much discussion on the talk page, other than the comment pointing out that the article makes a claim about the effectiveness of investment without citing a source. Another comment also points out that Peron is referred to as a dictator when he was actually technically elected, which makes me think that Peron and his election/Peronism might need to be briefly explained.

 Overall impressions/ Writing quality 

Overall the article is a C class which means it is a good contender for edits to be made. The headings are a little vague and could be more specific. I think it provides a rough outline but could use some fact checking in areas, cleaning up in terms of taking out opinions and adding in citations, and potentially adding in some unique voices and more recent sources.