User:Raerae231/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_African_Americans_in_Kentucky&oldid=1145653832

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
It details the history of African Americans in Kentucky, and it specifically mentions the 1964 March on Frankfort. It

Evaluate the article.
Lead Section:

- No, the article does not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It dives straight into the subject matter-- what the definition of black Kentuckians is.

- No, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. It gives census information about African Americans in Kentucky.

- Yes, the lead does contain information that is present in the article, such as statistical information. The general topic is the same, though.

- The lead is concise.

Content:

- Yes, the content is very relevant to the topic-- the history of African Americans in Kentucky.

- I assume the content is up to date, considering it is historical information.

- There is content missing. The history of African Americans in Kentucky only goes to 1996, but early 2000s information would be beneficial, too.

- Yes, the article directly talks about historically underrepresented populations, which are African Americans in this case.

Tone and Balance:

- Yes, the article is neutral.

-No, there don't appear to be biased claims.

- There aren't really specific viewpoints listed. It's historical events/facts.

-No, the article does not attempt to persuade readers to favor a certain viewpoint.

Sources and References:

- Yes, all the facts in the article are backed up by my reliable secondary sources.

-No, the sources are not thorough. There's not a lot listed.

-Yes, the sources are fairly current.

-Yes, the sources are very diverse, and they include historically marginalized figures.

-Yes, the links do work.

Organization and writing quality

- Yes, the article is well-written.

- There are not any grammatical errors that I could see.

-Yes, it is well organized. The sections are done by chronological order, so it's easy to follow.

Images and Media:

- No there are imagines that enhance understanding of the topic.

-There is one image of Muhammed Ali, which is visually appealing, and it adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion:

- On the talk page, there aren't very many conversations happening, but everyone seems helpful and friendly.

Overall Impressions:

- It is rated C-class

- The article's strength is that it is very historically accurate. Its chronological order helps the flow, and it's easier for readers to understand. I like how it dives into several different time eras, too.

The article's weakness is that it does not have an introduction that introduces the topic and gives a general overview of what the article is going to be about. It does not have a conclusion either.