User:Oliverlewis6/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: Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate primarily for a class assignment in which we are to use our newly sharpened Wikipedia training. This article, in particular, was chosen from a list provided by our professor, and peaked my interest because I know little to nothing about the article and have no connections to Indonesia.  Therefore, I believed I could be a fairly neutral evaluator.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Other than the table of contents, it does not explicitly describe the article's major sections; however the order in which topics are broached in the introductory paragraph roughly matches the table of contents provided. It does, however, include all of the 5 W's that are important to a good Lead in a Wikipedia article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It does not, as far as I could tell
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There were moments where it became slightly detail-oriented; however nothing was too specific or unrelated.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is a perfectly appropriate introduction to the article, if not a little detailed in the explicitness of dates and locations, which outlines the content of the article in an accurate and presentable way.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * It is as far as I can tell
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It is as far as dossiers that have been released by the CIA, and its record of all documentaries and public acts that have taken part in response to the Indonesian genocide other than a few minor protests.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content seems to be appropriate, relevant, and up-to-date save for a few minor protests that have occurred. Since none of these events are nearly as impactful as the documentaries and other legacies mentioned in the section, that seems to be par for the course of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. Neutral vocabulary is employed even in graphic and extraordinarily unpleasant descriptions in order to present the facts in a detached manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The only persuasion present is that the author continues to push the readers to understand that, while Indonesian historical records glaze over the event, the killings served as an important precedent and historical event.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is well done. Neutral vocabulary is employed even in graphic and intense situations in order to present the facts in a detached manner. Upon initial reading, there are no claims that appear heavily biased in any particular direction, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented/underrepresented, and the only persuasion present in the article is the attempt to convince the reader that this event was important through is legacy in documentary, and in legal precedent.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most are reliable, there are some university articles and propaganda sites, but these are in the minority.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes. there are not only a large amount of sources, but the sources stem from multiple different mediums from press to scholarly book to documentary.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes. as recent as 2018
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * all the links worked that were tried

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the sources are mostly reliable in this article. There are some freelance university articles and propaganda sites where anyone may post anything they choose; however the majority are scholarly works and pieces from legitimate news sources. Building off of this information, the sources are thorough, presenting multiple different sides, and are as current as 2018. All links that were clicked successfully directed the reader to the source.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

Organization evaluation
The article is clearly well written with appropriate introduction, information, supporting evidences, and conclusions, and is formatted in a sensible manner going off of chronological history and pure fact, then moving into the suspicious involvement of foreign involvement, and culminating in its historical legacy through many cultural mediums.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are two images, and they do little to show much of the descriptions within the article, preferring to focus on extremely specific details instead
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * they are a little small

Images and media evaluation
What the author contains in excellent grammar, they lack in the creativity and effectiveness of their use of images and media. Only two images are present in this article and they do little to show the majority of the descriptions and information within the article, preferring to focus on extremely specific details instead.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * many conversations such as whether or not to call it a genocide, small grammar-checks, and a question about the validity of claiming the united states had foreign involvement in certain aspects.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of multiple WikiProjects and rated B-Class High to Mid importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In class, we are much more emotional about situations like this. We do not have a neutral voice when we discuss it, and personally, I don't think we should.  But in the case of Wikipedia I agree it is important for us to maintain neutrality out of respect for the facts that will speak for themselves.

Talk page evaluation
Overall, the talk page was the most illuminating section as it represents the controversies that exist surrounding this article, as well as part of the work that went into perfecting its grammar and content. Many conversations exist in the talk page sparking a debate about whether or not we can call this article genocide, and a question in regards to the author's definition of "proof" and "assumption" in the foreign involvement section--all of which making good points. It is rated B-Class but High importance, and since it is part of many WikiProjects, lends me to believe it is among the more edited and examined works.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Good article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * strong in the variety of sources, detail, and organization
 * How can the article be improved?
 * improved slightly in assumption of fact in the foreign section
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would put it slightly under well developed. It is certainly not polished, but people have clearly put a lot of effort into it.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this is a very good, well-developed article, following most of the requirements set out by Wikipedia for a good article. It has strengths in its strong neutral tone, attention to detail, and a sensible organization, but has room for improvement in its assumption of what is fact vs. speculation in its foreign section. People have clearly put effort into it, and it has paid off; however it does still have some room left to go.

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: