User:Skywhales/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: Battle of Okinawa
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I enjoyed learning about Okinawa in our reading from "In The Realm of a Dying Emperor," and found the struggles of Ryukyuan people due to military occupation and tourism to be a fascinating point of study. Our reading discussed a lot of the impacts of WWII on Okinawa, so I thought it would be interesting to learn more about the battles fought there and how it impacted the region.

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 introductory sentence of the lead does a good job of summarizing what the Battle of Okinawa is. The lead goes on to briefly elaborate on some aspects of the article, such as military units, casualties, the battle's reputation and ultimate outcome, as well as the reason for this battle in the greater scope of the Pacific War. While none of this information is absent from the rest of the article, the lead does exclude many details that show up later on, which seems appropriate given how detailed the article is. Overall, I find the lead to be well written and fairly concise, though I don't think the paragraph discussing the Tenth Army was necessary to include, especially at this point. The next section discusses further how the Allied and Japanese military forces were set up, so I think this information would fit better there.

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
All of the content in the article is relevant to the overall topic, and there are no major indications that the information is out of date. Some paragraphs, particularly those regarding casualties of the battle, do cite numbers that have not been updated in 10 years or more, though it's likely that the sources of these numbers, such as the Cornerstone of Peace memorial, have not been updated themselves since then. As far as my knowledge goes of Okinawa in WWII, I think the article includes every piece of important info, not only the military history of the battle itself but also the effects it had on the war, Ryukyuan people, and more. Given that the article has a sizable section on the controversy around mass-suicides in Okinawa, and makes many references to how native peoples were affected by the battle, I would say this article does its best to represent a historically under-represented group.

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 contains discussions of American, Japanese, and Ryukyuan viewpoints, and is clear in showing no bias toward any one side. Some sections contain more information about American forces than the Japanese military, but this doesn't seem to be for a lack of trying. For example, I didn't find the discussion of Japanese casualties to be lacking any information, though the section on American casualties is longer and includes information such as Medal of Honor recipients. It's possible that the contributors to this article are mostly American and European, making knowledge of Japanese sources less likely, so perhaps the presence of Japanese contributors could serve to strengthen this article's overall neutrality.

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
There are over one hundred references for this article, and throughout the article it's evident how pieces of text were cited properly without plagiarism. The article does use a number of quotes to elaborate on certain viewpoints or to give first-hand accounts, and these were cited as well. It should be noted however that there are instances where citation is needed for specific phrases and pieces of information (mostly seen in the "land battle" section), so further work is definitely needed in this regard. As far as the sources themselves, they range from current to written around the time of the battle, and the authors appear to be mostly American and European with some Japanese; articles centered around exploring the marginalized perspectives of Ryukyuan's are included, though it doesn't seem that many of the actual authors are members of this ethnic group. Additionally, the links to the sources work well.

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
I think the organization of this article is one of its greatest strengths; throughout reading it, I didn't find any grammatical or spelling errors, and the quality of the writing is also quite high, such that I never felt confused by any statement being made, and saw a clear connection between one sentence and the next. I felt there wasn't too much difficult language such that any average reader would feel the individual sections were too hard to comprehend and learn from. I also think the article is nicely divided into sections regarding the military history, casualties, aftermath, and modern implications of the battle (such as revisionist history about mass-suicides in Okinawa).

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
Nearly every section of the article has a picture, with most having multiple pictures to better contextualize the Battle of Okinawa. The captions are short yet explain the picture well, and many include links to other Wikipedia articles. The layout of the pictures is mostly on the left and right sides of the page, though there are centered images that catch the eye of the reader more so than the others. I didn't feel as if these centered images were part of some bias from the contributors, though it may be worthwhile to know why the article was set up this way. Otherwise, the pictures all seem appropriate and adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations.

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 discussions that have taken place on this article's talk page are all related to certain statements that may have been untrue or had insufficient sources to back them up. The most recent discussion happened in August of 2020, so it seems that the article is still being readily updated as new information or errors are found. The article has a C-class rating in all three of the WikiProjects that it is a part of, being WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Japan / Military history / Ryukyu, and WikiProject Australia / Military history. Compared to the discussion we had about Okinawa in class, this article's talk page is more concerned about different facts such as military strategy and death counts. There doesn't seem to be any discussion of cultural bias in the article (though I think the article isn't very biased), which our class focuses more on.

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
The article currently has a C-class rating, meaning it has substantial amounts of detailed information, though is missing some citations and references to strengthen its integrity. I would agree with this rating, as my only major problem with the article was the presence of some sections lacking citation (though they are marked for this). The article is otherwise well written, packed with important information about the topic, and contains no promotion of one particular viewpoint. To any casual learner, this article gets the job done quite well, but it is by no means perfect. Hopefully necessary citation is added in the future, and more contributors, possibly of Japanese or Ryukyuan descent, can add to make this article even more comprehensive than it already is.

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: