User:RobertJastrzebski/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Adolf Hitler

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This is an extremely often visited wikipedia article about a major historical figure which is constantly being updated and revised to ensure it contains not only the most accurate information but also to ensure the tone of the article is as neutral as possible - admittedly a rather difficult task when dealing with a figure as villainous and widely reviled as Adolf Hitler.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article does a good job of introducing the topic to a casual reader - an introductory "topic" sentence is present which states clearly and concisely the subject of the article; a reader could get the basic facts from just this sentence alone. The first paragraph provides a good cursory overview of who Adolf Hitler was and why he is a major historical figure; the lead section does not contain any irrelevant information and outlines the direction of the article well. However, there are probably omissions that could be made from the lead section to make it more concise without affecting its ability to introduce the topic - small details of Hitler's early life are included which should probably be saved for a section dedicated to his early life.

The articles content is relevant to the topic and it appears that the content is up to date (with edits and revisions being made frequently - apparent from viewing the "talk" section of the article). It does not appear to contain missing information - where more detail is required for specific sub-topics, separate articles dedicated to those are linked. Topics such as the Holocaust and the Hunger Plan are generally only given cursory attention in other widely available sources (such as encyclopedias and school textbooks) - the article contains a rather detailed description of these events beyond the basic facts.

The article's tone is balanced and neutral - a laudable achievement with such a difficult topic and does not contain any bias or slant. Nazi ideology is accurately described without evoking an emotional response from the reader and it does not appear that any viewpoint is privileged. A reader of this article will not be persuaded of any one particular viewpoint but will gain the necessary information to develop a good base-level understanding of who Adolf Hitler was and what Nazi ideology was.

The article is well referenced relying on scholarly literature and does not contain any sources from popular media or unqualified individuals (except where such information is relevant: e.g. discussing worldwide reactions to Hitler's death) - the links provided work. However, there is a mixture of current and dated sources (with some dating back to the 1960s) - this is an area which could potentially be improved as literature has evolved in the time since; such a change would also likely benefit the article's inclusion of marginalized groups and perspectives.

On the whole, the article is well written and is sectioned out in a logical manner which makes it easy for the reader to follow the progression of events and gain an understanding of the major aspects of Hitler's life and time as dictator of Nazi Germany. There are a few minor grammatical errors but these do not detract from the readability of the article - visual aids are included to enhance the reading experience and all images are captioned and properly attributed.

It is clear from the talk page of this article that the wikipedia community is invested in ensuring that the article meets all Wikipedia standards - especially in terms of its tone. Most recent edits appear to be concerned with ensuring that wording is as neutral as possible (e.g. changing "racist" to "racially motivated" to avoid evoking emotional responses from readers). In class we only briefly discussed World War II and the Nazi regime in our first lecture this term - most of our discussion was related to the consequences and aftermath of the Second World War. The article dedicates a section to this but it is much more of a cursory overview than articles which directly discuss the aftermath.

The article is well-maintained and well-referenced and it is clear that a significant effort on the part of the community has been made to protect it from vandalism and ensure that its tone is in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to provide facts and information in a neutral, or as neutral of a way, as possible. The article is well-organized, easy to read and detailed (but not to the point of being obscure to a general audience). However, it could be improved by updating the source material to more recent scholarship on this topic - otherwise the article is extremely well-developed and well-maintained.