User:Ntilson14/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Iran and weapons of mass destruction

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I find weapons of mass destruction, specifically the theory of mutually assured destruction, to be an interesting look into the minds of both governmental leaders as well as a gauge on the reactions of their constituents when it comes to what knowledge they may have of their government's activities concerning weapons of mass destruction. I chose Iran as my country of choice because I'm interested in the current, evolving nature of this case, as well as the fact that Iran is not known to possess any such weapons yet the article exists.

Evaluate the article
To begin, I will evaluate the lead section. I believe that the lead section of this article does a fine job bringing the reader in by stating that although Iran may not have a clearly-developed program, there is much speculation as to what they may or may not know. I think that the lead section is concise enough, but this may be a product of there not being an overt amount of public information about their programs specifically. My one complaint with this section is that it is not all in perfect chronological order; the second to last section details a 2014 Wisconsin Project, while the final paragraph of the lead section covers a 2009 meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors. While all of this information is relevant and referenced later in the article (characteristics of a good Wiki article), I believe that this section could have flowed more logically if these events were set in chronological order, as the development of a nuclear arms program is not one that is best described out of order.

In terms of content, this article was a bit tricky because once again, there is not a lot of explicit information regarding Iran's knowledge of nuclear power. I appreciated the article opening with a history of Iran's involvement with the US as a jumpstart into this field, as it provided the reader with a solid understanding of how a country such as Iran could start developing nuclear power. This section regarding the history of nuclear arms was very cleverly written, as it not only highlighted the role of key regulatory nuclear agencies but also provided anecdotes as to how and when these organizations interacted with Iran as an individual nation. While much of this section does not explicitly refer to Iran, the section provides a detailed summary of nuclear history and supplements it with brief notices of how Iran has played into the global scene. It is generally a very neutral article, which is best evidenced when talking about Iran's as well as other countries' stances on Iranian involvement in nuclear arms development. The points of view and responses from each country are noted, but they are referenced in a matter of fact way so as to not put bias in the article. I also appreciated the inclusion of other Muslim countries' responses to their own nuclear arms development, for a few reasons. The first is that it takes note of certain cultural similarities (and differences) in the region, and the second is that it provides concrete examples of situations that are more researched and provides links to those articles. The section on the US' stance also comes with a warning that certain information may be out of date, with the only piece of information coming after 2012 stating, "As of 2021, Joe Biden's Secretary of State Antony Blinken did not rule out a military intervention to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons". I think that such a substantial gap in United States foreign policy is a significant issue, as the US' involvement in Iranian nuclear development is quite important and was definitely not dormant between the years 2012-2021. I believe that even though this article faces challenges with its content due to a general lack of information on the subject, it does a great job finding supplementary examples that build a more complete picture. My biggest piece of advice regarding the content is that it presents a vast history of nuclear arms and does a good job of tying Iran into that history, but it falls severely short in the two other forms of mass destruction (biological and chemical warfare). While it does provide a brief history of how Iran has interacted with these two forms of warfare, a more substantial background of these types of warfare, similar to how the article addresses nuclear warfare, would have gone a long way to contextualizing Iran's involvement in these two other fields.

I have little to no problems with the tone of this article. It presents the information in a neutral, logical way, and does not make any assumptions but rather states facts. The one problem I have with the tone of this article is that it pits the U.S and a lot of other first-world countries against Iran and other Muslim countries, which plays into the classic stereotype of the Western world against the Middle East. While this may seem like an issue, it may also be an unsolvable problem because even though it presents Iran as a rebellious and volatile country, it does so by laying out the facts as they are, so there may not be a way around this type of messaging.

The sources and references are one of this article's biggest strengths, so I won't go into much detail. The sheer volume of sources may seem overwhelming, and that's because it is. This article draws from nearly 300 different sources, as well as provides external links to analyses of this conflict as well as linking the reader to other, relevant Wikipedia articles when necessary. Overall, this was a large strength of the article.

The grammar and syntax of this article was flawless. I thought the organization of the article was acceptable, but I had a critique of the last section of the article, titled "delivery systems". I think it is important to touch upon this because it is relevant, but the section itself as well as the content within the section kind of seems to be shoved in at the end because there was nowhere else to put it. I would have liked to have seen these modes of delivery presented in the article throughout the sections as opposed to in a spreadsheet at the end of the article because I think it would give the reader a better sense of how and when these different modes of delivery were utilized over time, as opposed to just listing them at the end. I think this would have provided much needed context to the article and would have brought a little more reason to the article.

The use of images and other media in this article was a little lackluster, in my opinion. Only two photos were included in the article, one of which was just a picture of Biden's Secretary of State. Both of these images were also introduced over halfway through the article, meaning the reader was left with paragraphs on paragraphs of information without any photo reference. While this does not define the quality of the article, I believe that a few more pictures (the Shah of Iran who started their nuclear arms programs, pictures of some of the ballistic missiles they possess, etc) would have made it easier for the reader to put faces and pictures to names of very technical terms whilst reading the article.

The talk page of this article, while a bit sparse, is actually very productive. Some threads talk about the merger between this topic and the AMAD project, which has since been shut down but showed voiced reason on both sides. There are also a number of points being made that show where something is out of date or factually incorrect, which usually leads to corrections or discussions as to why it didn't need a correction. It is not the most active discussion page on the website, but it is definitely an academic and productive one.

In sum, I think this article showed the strength of bringing in generalized research and coupling it with anecdotes from the country of study (in this case Iran). This article also did a great job of incorporating multiple, relevant viewpoints so that the true scope of the issue was clearly defined. I also think this article shows the proper way to cite sources and provide ample evidence. Its weaknesses come in the form of outdated/incorrect information due to a lack of public knowledge, as well as inconsistencies with the telling of the histories of each individual form of warfare. However, I think this article is a strong one and is a few public memos from the government away from presenting a very accurate picture of the issue on Wikipedia.