User:Srios10/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2008 Christmas massacres

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it was rated as C-class. In class, while discussing what type of articles we should look at, C-class articles were one of the options. This article matters because it is an example of a coup occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In class, we discussed how coups often seek to overthrow the government from the top. I thought it would be interesting to evaluate an article written about South Africa that was pertinent to our class discussions. Additionally, my first impression of the article was that the sources needed improvement. Some of the sources used in the article are not reliable and contain opinions. The information on the article was very brief and limited as well.

Evaluate the article
The lead section's opening sentence was decent. It provided sufficient information to identify who the rebel group was and who the coup was against. I was able to understand who the article would discuss. However, the lead section was too short and contained no information on the article’s main sections. The lead section consisted of two sentences and did not provide enough information to have a decent understanding of the massacre.

The content of the article was relevant to the topic. The article provided a description of the attacks and death toll. The page was last edited a month ago so I would say it is up to date, but some content is missing. It would have been a stronger article if it gave some background on why the coup took place. What was the Lord's Resistance fighting for and how this ended up in a coup?

The tone and balance of the article were balanced in some sections more than others. The author of this article did a fine job of maintaining a neutral tone when providing information about the death toll. The reaction section of the article did use some language that overrepresented the disapproval of the coup. The language used sounded like it is over representing opposition to the coup which may sway the reader towards one position.

Regarding the sources, one of the first things I noticed was that the links for many of the sources did not work and directed me to error pages. The links that did work were predominantly articles from news sources to which you needed a subscription to read. A separate link directed to another Wikipedia page as a source. None of the sources used were academic articles with many of the articles written roughly 10 years ago. Upon conducting some limited research, I found that there are not many good sources or academic journals that discuss the topic in depth.

Furthermore, the article was easy to read and concise. Besides some minor grammatical errors in a couple of sentences the article is well written. The article was well organized and separated the sections well. Concerning the images and media, the photographs provided were helpful and relevant. The pictures adhered to Wikipedia's copyright policy and were captioned.

On the talk page discussion, there is discourse regarding the reactions section. People advised against keeping the reactions portion of the section. The reactions portion of the section as I mentioned in a previous paragraph overrepresented the disapproval of the coup. Moreover, there was a comment suggesting that the name of the article be changed claiming that the article would be more helpful if it was less ambiguous. I did see that the author of the article took the advice and changed the article's name to a title more specific and representative of its content.

Overall, the article was well written but lacked content and reliable sources. There was more that could have been discussed and expanded on. As I previously mentioned, it would have been nice to understand how this massacre developed and more about those who committed the atrocity. Several of the links provided on the page did not work either so it was hard to know what sources the article was referring to. As I conducted my own research on the topic, I realized that there was not much coverage on the topic, and I can see how that impacted the sources on the article. I would say the biggest strength of the article was its legibility. It was easy and straight-to-the-point. I think the article still lacks completeness and with some more work could be improved!