User:Thegreatsloth/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)
 * Chadian–Libyan conflict
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I'm evaluating this article because I'm interested in how intra-African state conflict occurs.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is all broadly relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it is all up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all content is relevant from what I can understand.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, not that I can understand.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints were equal.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it informs them of the facts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information


 * Yes


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, relatively, except for the many sections.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Rest, except that each section doesn't flow well into each other.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, although more maps would've been appreciated.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * There's various conversations about the specifics of the sections, with the Toyota Wars being argued to be long enough to be its own article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's been rated as.a good article under the warfare WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It's very impartial and provides a broad overview about what happened with minimal connections to the politics underlying why and how it happened.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * GA-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It's strengths lie in the breadth of its discussion of how the conflict was carried out. it goes deeply in depth with a lot of the specifics, allowing the reader to get a better feel for it.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be improved by using more naps and improving flow between all the sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Overall, the article is well-developed and complete.

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: