User:S2149249/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.


 * Sectarianism: (Sectarianism)
 * Sectarianism and Yemen is not well covered in the article. Under the header ‘Yemen’ two sentences are stated. This is not a clear explanation about what the sectarian dimension  of the conflict in Yemen is about. Even when you read the main article links attached 'Shia insurgency in Yemen' and 'Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)' to this subsection it is not getting much clearer.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, although there is a definition given of the word sectarianism with no reference. Only one reference is given at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of the Lead section. Besides that, on the Talk page there is much discussion about what the exact meaning of sectarianism 'should be'.
 *  Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?  No. The article has two major sections. The first one is ‘Religious sectarianism’ and the second one is ‘Political sectarianism’. However, it is mentioned in the Lead that sectarianism is often labelled religious and/or political although that it is more complex in the real world. Also mentioned in the lead is that sectarian conflict usually refers to violent conflict along religious or political lines. But not all conflicts along political lines are considered sectarian as far as I am aware of. What this put forward is the question why this article explains both forms of sectarianism in separate sections. Religious sectarianism is covered extensively in the article with country/regional specific examples; especially Europe and Lebanon are covered well. Political sectarianism on the other hand consists of two sentences without a reference.
 *  Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  Yes. There is an illustration in the Lead with the title ‘Sectarian battle between the Sunni Ottoman and Shia Safavid empire at the Battle of Chaldiran’ and not explained in the article why this battle should be considered sectarianism.
 *  Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  I think it is concise enough for such a complex phenomenon as sectarianism.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 *  Is the article's content relevant to the topic?  Yes.
 *  Is the content up-to-date?  No, needs editing according to the Talk discussion.
 *  Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  Yes, this is mentioned in the Talk discussion and the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 *  Is the article neutral?  According to the Talk discussion it can (probably) be made more neutral.
 *  Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  No.
 *  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?  No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 *  Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?  Most sources are news articles, only a few academic sources.
 *  Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  I do not think so. Books and academic papers I have read about the topic are not mentioned.
 *  Are the sources current?  Yes.
 *  Check a few links. Do they work?  I found one link that is not working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 *  Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?  Yes.
 *  Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?  No, but I am not a native English speaker.
 *  Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?  Well organized but the content of the different sections need editing.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 *  Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?  Yes.
 *  Are images well-captioned?  Yes.
 *  Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?  They might.
 *  Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?  Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 *  What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?  About the definition of sectarianism.
 *  How is the article rated?  Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class. WikiProject Sociology. WikiProject Politics / Corporatism.
 *  How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?  In class we try to discuss sectarianism in accordance with certain frameworks and different visions developed by the main scholars in this field of research. Primordialism, instrumentalism, sectarianism from below/above are concepts that are not mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 *  What is the article's overall status?  Needs editing.
 *  What are the article's strengths?  Examples given.
 *  How can the article be improved?  Sectarianism and Yemen is not well covered in the article. Under the header ‘Yemen’ two sentences are stated: “In Yemen, there have been many clashes between Salafis and Shia Houthis. According to the Washington Post, in today’s Middle East, activated sectarianism affect the political cost of alliances, making them easier between co-religionists. That helps explain why Sunni-majority states are lining up against Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah over Yemen.” This is not a clear and eleborate explanation about the sectarian dimension of the conflict in Yemen. Even when you read the links attached to this subsection it is not getting much clearer.
 *  How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?  It is a good starting point for further development.

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: