User:Perry Katsarakes/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: White savior
 * I chose this article to evaluate because the concept of having a white savior complex is one that we've thoroughly discussed in our Studio course, and upon reviewing the article I felt that there was definitely more that could be added to it in order to increase the depth and usefulness of the page.

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 starts with an introductory sentence that is fairly clear in its explanation of the article's topic; I do think that it could be made a little more straightforward, since the term "white savior" doesn't really require a distinction between positive and negative connotations depending on context -- it's essentially always used as a negative descriptor for someone, so it's unnecessary to say " in some contexts perceived to be self-serving" in the description of the topic. The second sentence also makes a reference to a poem that is not elaborated upon or explained further. The Lead mentions but does not include a full description of some of the sections of the article, so those should probably be added. It's very brief, consisting of only four sentences, so it doesn't include any extraneous information about the article but it does seem a little too short to cover everything that's mentioned in the following sections.

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
The content is reasonably good for this article; all of it is relevant to the topic, and nothing is noticeably outdated or unnecessary. There does seem to be a lack of information and examples in one of the sections, although it links to an article on a similar topic to that section, so I would assume that is excusable.

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
In terms of tone and balance, there does not seem to be any particular bias; the article references both sides of the perspective on the term "white savior complex," with some quotes and sections expressing unhappiness with the term being used to describe people trying to help and others describing how these same people are often doing more damage than good because of this very issue. The article certainly appears to be geared towards educating and informing the reader rather than persuading them towards believing a specific viewpoint.

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 article includes an abundance of links and sources to support its claims and back up the quotes it uses. The sources cover a wide range of authors and topics, so I think they are quite thorough overall. They range from the 1970s to as late as 2017, so many of them are definitely current, and all of the links that I checked worked correctly.

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 mostly well-written, although some sentences have somewhat clunky structures that makes the article a little more difficult to read and understand. There don't seem to be any glaring grammatical or spelling errors present. I think the article could have been organized in a more useful way; for example, it's currently sorted into "Association with Africa," "Appearance in Film," "Appearance in Television," and "White Savior Industrial Complex," but in each of these sections there is reference to the debate on how so-called "white saviors" should be perceived and what should be the correct way to help. Maybe including two subsections for this debate in each of the current sections would be helpful.

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 only includes one image, which is a picture of Teju Cole in the "White Savior Industrial Complex" section. The inclusion of additional images would certainly be useful in my opinion. The sole image in the article is well-captioned and it makes sense for it to be included. It does appear to adhere to copyright regulations. Its layout is a little bothersome visually because it's next to a box of text but not exactly aligned with it, although this isn't that big of an issue.

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
I was surprised to find that there was actually a debate over the issue I described earlier, which was adding in subsections about stances on perception of "white saviors" in popular media and in reality. Some people believed there should be categorization of views, while others thought it would be giving too much credit to people who thought "white saviors" didn't exist or that the label is overused/misused (much in the same way that describing vaccination or climate change as a debate gives credibility to people who hold provably incorrect views). I think this is a fair point and would probably agree with it, since I don't think there's any merit in saying that white saviors don't exist or in trying to defend people who are obviously acting as white saviors for their own benefit, popularity, or personal satisfaction. The article is part of many projects including WikiProject Africa and Wikiproject Discrimination. It has not been rated in some of them, but in the ones in which it is rated, it received a low rating. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is different because responses are delayed compared to our in-class discussion, so a lot of times people will make edits first and then explain their reasoning in the discussion later, which often causes fights and disagreements that wouldn't happen in real-time conversation.

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 seems a little underdeveloped and unclear. The writing that is present is generally well-done and includes a variety of useful sources, so I don't have much to say about editing the text that's already there, but I definitely think the article is lacking in some areas and could be improved by adding additional explanations of certain references/quotes/citations (like the poem in the Lead) or even by adding one or two more sections to add to its depth and variety.

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: