User:Osenbei1002/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: Battle of Okinawa
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I thought learning a bit more about Okinawa in class was very interesting so I wanted to learn more about the Battle of Okinawa specifically, as I know it is quite important but I didn't really know much details about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise with enough details to give idea of article and what the sections will be

Lead evaluation
Good summary and leads into rest of article well. I think that the introduction is well summarize and gives a clear image as to what the content and various sections will be without becoming too overpowering.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, not really as I think this topic already has a decent amount written about it on the internet.

Content evaluation
Good content and everything relates to the battle and gives good job of leading up to battle, the actual battle, and then the aftermath. Could be longer with effects/aftermath though in my opinion. For example, the aftermath aside from the war perspective is rather short.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Mostly yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I think the section that talks about school aged Japanese children involved in the efforts was slightly biased to portray Japan in a poor light and became slightly opinionated, especially the brief sentence talking about the girls who acted as nurses but still exposed to "harsh conditions of the war"
 * 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? It remains pretty neutral and represents both sides I think.

Tone and balance evaluation
Pretty good at remaining neutral and unbiased, aside from that one sentence I mentioned. It is an easy fix though and I think it just kind of made it seem that the Japanese were immensely cruel etc and had a slight opinion weaved in there.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, for example on the aftermath the sources are more current to depict the current state of the feelings Japanese people harbor towards things like the US base.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The spectrum of authors are diverse, but I cannot say that there are historically marginalized people as the issue mostly deals with Japanese/American authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are diverse and references, and the links work accurately. Good variety of books and online sources from both sides (American and Japanese).

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Complex topic with some difficult terms, but I do not think that is due to contributor fault, rather the complexity of the topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not any obvious ones I can read.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Organization is well done and syntax/grammar as well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but could have some more Japanese military photos as opposed to just ones of prisoners or them captured.
 * 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? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Maybe more Japanese/Japanese military photos could be added, as there are a considerable amount of American military ones. Photos add to content to allow readers to visualize.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?The biggest ones were over casualty counts/missing and how those figures are different, and captioning a certain image.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated C-Class. It's part of C-Class Japanese military history articles and of interest to the projects MiltaryHistory and Japan/MilitaryHistory
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It just gave a much more thorough viewpoint and also focused more on the battle/strategies undertaken by the American and Japanese military as opposed to a more cultural viewpoint of the aftermath/effects on the Japanese.

Talk page evaluation
Minimal talk for the complexity, and largest debate is over casualty/ missing+casualty numbers and making sure they're accurate.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Complete and doesn't have a ton of recent editing in past year.
 * What are the article's strengths? The details that provide insight into battle strategy and the subsequent effects.
 * How can the article be improved? The aftermath of US military presence/perception by the Japanese people.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is pretty complete.

Overall evaluation
Overall, a well done and pretty complete article. Room to discuss aftermath a bit more. No major issues or missing ideas that I could notice, but I do not have extreme knowledge on the topic as well as a caveat.

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: