User:Taliafrankel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Inauguration of Donald Trump

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I felt that this article is relevant to the topics currently being discussed in class. Trump's communication, and therefore his inauguration speech is an example of elite communication and his election was an important historical event for United State's politics.

Evaluate the article
The leading section of this article was an appropriate length and had the appropriate amount of detail to describe what would be discussed in the rest of the article. This section was precise and not overly detailed, although there could have been more to describe all of the sections discussed further. As far as the content goes for the rest of the article, it all seemed relevant, accurate, and meaningful. There were many sections that were far more descriptive of the inauguration, containing facts and statistics about the audience and the reactions to the event. This article also involved multiple perspective on the Trump inauguration without coming across as biased. There were descriptions of the event itself as well as protests that occurred in response, all of which is important to note to understand the effects of the election. There is lengthy reporting on the protests and investigations surrounding the inauguration, which does oppose the trump presidency, but is all supported by fact and is not worded in a way that is attempting to make the reader believe a certain perspective. However, the description of Trump's speech itself did seem to me to come across as biased, with much of the content seeming to draw from left-wing news sources that show Trump's speech in a bad light.

This article provides sources for all of the facts and statements made, but the vast majority of sources are from news outlets such as the New York Times, Vanity Fair, CNN, etc. There are a diverse range of news outlets which offer various perspectives on the inauguration, but there could certainly be more educational sources, such as peer-reviewed articles, included in the analysis. Many of the sources are also from 2017, after the inauguration occurred. This seems appropriate for the topic, but it could also be useful to use more recent sources that may have a deeper analysis of the event, rather than those that were published directly after.

Overall, the article is very well organized and easy to navigate. Sections concerning the description of the event are kept separate from those describing competing protests and investigations, which helps the article appear unbiased and clean-cut. I did not find any spelling errors that were noticeable and the writings itself was easy to understand, if not a bit choppy at times. The images/videos included were all also relevant, captioned, and spaced in a way that complimented the article rather than taking away from the written portion.

The talk-page of this article did provide me with an interesting perspective, as the top involvement took issue with the introductory statement of the article, claiming that saying the 2017 inauguration was Trump's only term in office was biased and untrue. This person claimed that since Trump could run again, even after being outed by Biden, this statement should not be made on a reputable site. I will contradict this statement due to the fact that it has been Trump's only term in office, and if this changes the article can be changed as well. However, as of the present day this statement is true and not necessarily biased. This article does appear in some WikiProjects, such as Donald Trump, American Politics, and the United States, which are all listed as C-class articles, meaning they are of mid to low importance. This article does discuss the importance of communication and also includes the responses to elite communication which are both issues we have discussed in class.

Overall, the article seems to be well organized and well sourced. However, even as a non-Trump supporter, I do think that there are areas of this article that do come across as unbiased and anti-Trump. I think taking more perspectives from more groups (whether minority or not) could help this article come across as more reliable and even-keeled.