User:Nelson.bassett1/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: (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:
 * This seems to have some basic information pertinent to the subject matter but seems to be lacking breadth and detail.
 * The subject matter also appeals to me so I feel motivated to evaluate it.
 * This article pertains to an Inuit organization which advocates for a historically disadvantaged group in Canada. Due to this, and the above mention lack of breadth and detail, I think this article represents a 'content gap'.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead of the article has some information about what the article is about, but this lead does not go far enough. The lead does not give an adequate description as to what the rest of the article will be about--and does not give any description or indication to the major sections of the article. Overall the lead to is concise to the point of excluding necessary detail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The articles content is relevant (although lacking). The content could benefit from more recent information for the last 5 years. The content could also benefit from specific actions and recent history. The history section is sorely lacking.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article overall seems to be neutral in tone, although this could be due to a general lack of detail. The article lacks any persuasion so is not skewed towards any given view.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The "Goals" section is lacking any references. A lot of references in the article are attributed to the news and so risk having a bias. The references lack diversity.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
The article seems to be concise and logical in organization. The "Governance" section could perhaps be split to have some of the information filed under 'Recent History' or something of that ilk.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article lacks any images outside of the logo and a map. An image or two could spruce things up.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are some discussions going on, mainly related to the details of the article. The discussions are a little dated now and the page does not seem to have much activity.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article lacks detail and breadth. The article doesn't seem to be skewed towards any given viewpoint. The article can be benefited by an overall updating and expanding. The article could also do with more references. The article is currently in a poor state.

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: Talk:Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami