User:Rosewoodcabrillo/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: Basbousa
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am a big fan of Middle Eastern sweets, so this article on Basbousa presented an opportunity to learn about the dish and help update its Wikipedia page. The page itself has some features we've discussed in class and the modules, such as pictures and distinct sections. However, it is also missing many key elements, such as being flagged for a lack of appropriate citations. This indicated it was an interesting learning opportunity to become familiar with Wikipedia.

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 on the page is very concise and appears to have relevant information. The first sentence introduces the what the food is, although I feel like it would be more beneficial to include a description of what the food is (ingredients, taste, etc) rather than its country of origin. The next sentence does fulfill this need by providing a list of ingredients. The lead does not explicitly mention the article's major sections, although it can be seen how names and variations relate to the geographic distribution described at the end of the lead. This assumption does take additional work on the reader's part, though. The ingredients and geography are not mentioned again in the article, which instead shifts to "names" and "variations" in the sections. The lead is pretty concise, but has room to become more developed and better set up the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is adjacent to the topic, however, I think that individuals coming to a wikipedia page on a dessert would be more interested in the recipe or occasions the food is served rather than the difference in product names. Therefore even though the content is relevant because it directly relates to Basbousa, it isn't what I would classify as most relevant to the reader, providing some room for improvement. The only dated reference in the article is under "variations" and references a offshoot of Basbousa which originated in the 2010s, making it seem decently up-to-date. Although the content mentions a variety of geographic settings, it does not deal directly with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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
The article does use a neutral tone. There are not any claims that appear heavily biased. Given the short length of the article, it appears to provide mostly factual basics on what basbousa is and where it is currently popular, making it fairly objective rather than persuasive. I am inclined to think articles with more detail may run more heavily into bias issues, although bias can definitely appear in short articles as well. Despite listing a variety of cuisines in the lead, the article focuses mainly on basbousa in Egypt. Adding more information about basbousa in different cuisines is a growth opportunity for this piece.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article has a warning from Wikipedia that states it is missing citations in its sections. The article has many links to other Wikipedia pages, but only 4 external citations, one of which does not work. Due to this, none of the information in either the "Names" or "Variations" sections is backed up by valid sources. The small quantity of sources proves that this is not a thorough reflection of knowledge on this recipe or its cultural significance. The sources that are listed date to the 2010s, making them relatively current. Only two of the sources have identified authors, making it extremely difficult to bring in multiple viewpoints and provide representation. After just a few minutes of analysis, it is clear why Wikipedia has flagged this article's citation practices.

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 relatively short, making it easy to follow. The lead and variation section are concise and clear, but the "names" section is a bit confusing. It lists the name of Basbousa in different cuisines, and then gives a brief explanation of the word "hareesa" in relation to basbousa. Confusingly, this section also includes a few sentences on basbousa's popularity among Muslims and Christians in Egypt, which does not appear relevant to its name. The article is written in casual, yet professional prose with few copyedit errors. The sections reflect points of the topic, but as noted earlier when discussing content, this article lacks some common categories related to dishes, such as recipes and serving occasions.

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 contains two pictures of Basbousa which make it much easier for the reader to envision the food and understand its qualities that are described in the piece. The primary image is given a short, descriptive caption, but the second image is captioned with extra information on the use of almonds as garnish that is not provided elsewhere in the piece. I personally like this additional information, but am interested to learn more about how to best caption Wikipedia images to complement the writing. It seems like both images were personally taken by editors of the piece, which if true, would make them fit within copyright regulations. Both images are on the far right of the screen, making them line up nicely, however the second image could've been moved around to break up the text a bit more.

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
The talk page had two posts on it, one of which was a suggestion to merge the topic with an article on Sambali, which is simply a different name for Basbousa. The articles were merged after discussion from contributors. The second post is a bit more confusing to me, since it appears to be from a Bot that archived sources. I could be reading this post incorrectly however, so I will plan to investigate this a bit further. This article is recognized as a "stub" which means it does not have enough content to be an encyclopedia entry. The topic is discussed in much less detail and from very different lenses than we would approach it in class.

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
This article is rated as a start class article, meaning it has room for improvement. I believe to improve this article, adding additional content that is more relevant to a dessert, including the aforementioned recipe and serving occasions, as well as overhauling its citation practice would be extremely beneficial. The article's current strengths lay in its easy to understand prose, as well as illustrative, non copyright images. I think this article currently sits at underdeveloped, since it is going in the right direction but still has much more content to be added.

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: