User:Sugarpop2301/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: (link) Bari people
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I just chose this one out of the list my professor provided.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, the introductory line is very short, and just that they are from South Sudan.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the reader has no idea what the article is going to be about based off of the first line. You get a brief idea based on the subtexts in the content box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the article mentions all the information. However, in my opinion, the original author didn't provide enough detail or go as in-depth on several of the topics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, the article is not detailed enough. Some of the headings only have one or two lines of text.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the author talks solely about the Bari.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, the last time this content was updated was in 2015.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, I have noticed that there are not really a lot of in-text citations. Also, I don't see any section on religion.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article talks about the Bari people, although there is not a lot in information about some of the topics so I am curious to see if that is because there is not a lot of research done on the Bari or if it is because the original author never finished the page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is made up of facts and not opinions. It looks like the sources are unbiased as well.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I do not see any claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Bari Language section has two sentences in it and the part about the Bari people being slaves has several paragraphs in it. I would like to see a small section about a famous Bari who is well known for something they did.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, like I said before, the article is very neutral in tone.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I am not sure, as quite a few of the sources are written in a language I can't read or understand.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources that I can read provide more information than is on the Wiki article so I can use some of those sources to beef up some of the sections.
 * Are the sources current? No, they were all written before 2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I don't see any articles or books written on historically marginalized people but I see a healthy mix of various authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they take me to a web site or to another Wiki page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I don't see any spelling errors or sentence structure errors so this is a very clean article. It doesn't have a super nice flow to it but that can be fixed by adding more information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I can see a few grammatical errors (missing a comma here and there) but no spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well organized and will make sense chronologically.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are 3 photographs, two of a man and one of a homestead. I think they help establish some information about the Bari
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, but they are very brief captions.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they are linked to the original source.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are all laid out on the right hand side and the photos are laid out near where there is information to further explain the photos.

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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is very clearly unfinished.
 * What are the article's strengths? Provides plenty of information on how the Bari were forced into slavery but everything else needs more information.
 * How can the article be improved? Add more intent citations, add some information about their relationships with people and other tribes and on their religion. I would like to focus mostly on religion though. Currently, the article says the Bari believe in God and some in traditional spirits. I would like to go in depth on these traditional spirits. Ngun for example.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed. The article started off strong and it's almost like the author lost interest and just stopped editing.

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: