User:Niortega/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Historical figure
 * I wanted to select a topic in which I had some prior knowledge. I completed my B.A in History, and I have a personal passion for accounting and recounting historical events and circumstances with objectivity, so I selected the article “Historical figure” for evaluation.

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 offers a simple explanation for what defines a “historical figure,” and provides examples of figures in history who fit into this category to provide contextual understanding. However, there is no explanation for what constitutes “famous,” which could be misleading to readers. The lead refers to most of the article’s main sections but fails to mention the following main categories: “3- Political appropriation” and “5- In branding.” This section is not concise and contains an overly wordy structure which makes it difficult to understand what sections will follow.

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?

Content evaluation
Most of the content is directly relevant to the topic. There are perspectives from major scholars and developments, and definitions for the intricacies on the multifaceted nature of the historical figure. The most significant contributions to the article occurred in 2012, which is reflected in the citations themselves, and there have been only a few major updates to content since then. However, there have been no new additions of materials with newer copyrights beyond 2012 or resources between.

There are a few sections that don’t belong or need to be reworked for better fit. For one, the “Fables” section incorrectly correlates persisting stories of historical figures as “fables.” The article actually links to the Wikipedia article about Fables and promptly contradicts itself. In addition, the “other media” section could be expanded to include additional instances of media besides Doctor Who that have presented examples of historical figures. “Modern fiction” could also use expansion by offering additional examples of titles and explanations of how historical figures are reinterpreted in works of fiction.

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 overrepresented, 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 attempts to be neutral but is not. There are too many opinion-based claims unsubstantiated by zero citations and a significant number of subjective qualifiers in existing content. For example, at the end of the introductory section, the article states: “More recently there has been a tendency once again for authors to freely depart from the "facts" when they conflict with their creative goals.” Placing “facts” in parentheses questions the meaning of the word itself, casting doubt toward the reliability of the historical record and demonstrating bias. Additional qualifiers and use of unnecessary analysis run rampant throughout the work, such as: “freely depart,” “just,” “apparently,” “can be difficult if not impossible,” and, “taken to the extreme.”

While there are no overt attempts to sway the reader towards an opinion, content surrounding the discussion of “Historical truth” in various perspectives, particularly religious figures, appears slanted. In this regard, content focuses disproportionately towards Jesus Christ as a figure in Christianity, with a passing mention to a few figures in Hinduism and Buddhism, without mention of other major religions and figures, such as the Prophet Mohammed and Islam. Further, western scholars (European and American) feature prominently in the discussion, with little to no mention of prominent researchers from other areas of the world. There is also a lack of discussion of historical figures of color, and there are few passing mentions of how women fit into this topic.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The most recent literature listed is sourced is from 2012, so it is highly likely more recent additional resources exist on this topic. Further, the most recent “retrieved” dates are from 2012 as well. In terms of comprehensive treatment, there are a variety of resources from the 1990s and 2000s, along with some content from the early 2010s. While there are some references to works from the early 1800s and some from the 1900s-1940s, there is a clear gap in content from 1940-1980. In order to provide a more thorough treatment to the topic, this time period should be examined more closely to provide a broader view of scholarly schools of thought and provide substantiation or negation to existing article content.

There are many problematic citations or a lack thereof. One such example is the following citation: “Hidalgo, Cesar (2012-11-01), "Wikipedia's top 20", Wired.” It is clear this is a digital article because Wired is an online publication, but there is no link to this resource. General searching also revealed no results. This article either does not exist anymore or was improperly cited. Further, many citations lack publication information, are generally inconsistently formatted, or use different citation styles. Another instance of lacking citations occurs in the, “Hegel’s world historical figure” section, where directly after the statement, “Eventually, the Athenians quite rightly” the following appears: “*(Name source).” Overall, there are many uncredited facts in the article. There is even a full citation within one of the main sections, “In branding,” where an entire website is listed after a resource.

Furthermore, the two sections “Citations” and “Sources” are confusing. While there is significant value in offering paginated notations for where material was retrieved, it also creates unnecessary clutter for the article itself. If this area is deemed necessary, the section should be condensed to collocate duplicate references to a single resource.

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 is difficult to read and would benefit from additional paragraph breaks, such as in the Lead introductory section. Further, many sentences could benefit from additional conciseness, with some current sentences containing unnecessary opinionated qualifiers,

The article is mostly well-organized, but as noted above, it omits a description of “political appropriation” and “in branding” in the introductory section. There are also unnecessary expansions without explanation or transition, such as in the “Political appropriation” section, where the article begins abruptly describing Joan of Arc in the context of being appropriated as a political figure.

There are many spelling and grammatical errors, tense related inconsistencies, and problems with singular/plural verb agreement. An additional issue affecting the article’s overall readability are the many paragraph length direct quotations. This occurs most excessively in the “Heroic View” section, where around 75% of the sourced content is from direct, lengthy quotations. Further, a lack of transitions makes content hard to understand within the scope of the larger article. For example, it was unclear the article would discuss specific scholarly perspectives on the “Significance” of the historical figure because no specific figures are mentioned in the introductory lead section.

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 provides useful images, such as displaying photos of important persons related to the topic, such as Lord Byron (as a historical figure), near relevant sections of discussion. However, images predominately feature white men, and the only two images of women are not positive depictions: Joan of Arc stands tied to the stake and Lady Godiva rides naked upon a horse. Caption images are overall helpful, but a few provide unnecessary subjective statements, such as describing Joan of Arc as “heroic” and Jesus as the, “founder of Christianity.” The images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations, but almost all images are missing the United States public domain tag to identify the work as part of the public domain.

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
The article is part of two WikiProjects: WikiProject History (C-class, Top-importance) and WikiProject Literature (C-class, Top-importance). Interestingly, there was a push to delete the article in 2012, and after some debate, Wiki users decided to keep the article instead. The main talk page shows Wiki users created a list to flesh out particular ongoing issues, such as how certain people would or would not be listed in the initial “lead” sentence regarding who is qualified to be listed as a historical figure. There was also a debate for how to use an indefinite article in the context of historical figure. However, major content revisions date back to 2012, with a few large scale contributions occurring in 2014 and 2017.

Wikipedia and the users contributing to the topic don’t appear to consider neutrality in the way this topic has been discussed in class. Currently, the article’s contributors appear to be focused on adding/editing substantive content, while the class has focused on balancing content with objective language and paraphrasing gathered resources.

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
The article is slightly above average in quality. With overly wordy sections and a lack of citations, it is hard to take many of the assertions made seriously. However, the article does well in setting the groundwork for how the historical figure features in the historical record and in public spaces, while considering how scholarly debate/considerations for the topic have evolved. However, this does not excuse the fact many sections of the article need proofreading, condensing, and links to citations. Dead citations should be removed or updated and there is a clear slant for cited resources and existing content. At this point the article appears moderately developed, but is underdeveloped in emerging areas, such as “other media.”

Optional activity

 * Link to feedback: Talk:Historical figure