User:TimTom05/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) 2009 Boko Haram uprising
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because of two reasons. First, the topic at hand is interesting, as it follows how religion is a mobilizing force/agent for the people. Second, it is interesting to see how the Nigerian government was able to reign in this uprising and keep order.

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 lead on this article is very good. The introductory sentence describes the article's content and topic concisely and clearly. The lead, however, doesn't really give a brief description of the article's major sections, only really describing one or two major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article and could be considered overly detailed.

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?

Content evaluation
For the evaluation of the content, I have to say that this article's content is quite good. All the content is relevant to the topic at hand, that being the 2009 Boko Haram uprising. The content is up-to-date, having very accurate and a correct timeline of what happened. Finally, most content that is needed and relevant to the topic of this article is present. Meaning that the Wikipedians who worked on this article did quite a good job.

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 is very neutral considering the topic. No claims seem to appear bias towards a particular position, nor are there any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Also, there seems to be no attempts at trying to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Which is good, as this article seems to be only trying to give out the necessary and appropriate info on what actually happened.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
When it comes to sources and references of this article, they seem to be all reliable. All the links work, they seem to be from reliable sources and are thorough, and they seem to be current (at least for when this uprising happened, as they are all from 2009).

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
This article is very well-written, concise and clear to read. It doesn't seem to have any grammatical errors and seems to be relatively decent. The way that this article is organized is pretty good. Each major section is basically a region where a Boko Haram uprising occurred, so all information in each of those sections is solely dedicated to that region. Which is a good way to organize an article like this.

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
This article only includes two pictures, both of which are a map of where these uprisings happened. Both are well-captioned, from Wikimedia Commons and are laid out in the most visually appealing way that maps can be.

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
For this specific article, there are quite a few individuals discussing this article page. Most of which are about how the uprising ended or that a new body count was just found. Just little pieces of information that could make the article better and more up-to-date. This article is apart of many WikiProjects and because of that, rated just a little differently. Them being: WikiProject Africa (rated C-class), WikiProject Crime (rated C-class), WikiProject Disaster Management (rated C-class), WikiProject Islam (rated C-class), WikiProject Law Enforcement (rated C-class). WikiProject Military History (rated B-class), WikiProject Politics (rated C-class), WikiProject Serial Killer task force (rated C-class), and WikiProject Terrorism (rated C-class). I couldn't say how wikipedia discusses this topic is different from the way we've talked about it in class, just because we haven't talked about it in class.

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
This article's overall status is that its pretty decent. It has a decent lead and introductory sentence, has well-organized sections, good grammar and is overall quite informative of its topic. The article's strength lies in the amount of reliable and credible sources that it has. Meaning that all the information is good, current and thorough. Essentially, you can't go wrong when using this article. For improving this article, I have to say expanding upon the regions that don't have a whole lot of information on what exactly happened in them. This is because some regions have multiple paragraphs, while some have only a couple of sentences at best. When assessing the articles completeness, I think I'd have to say that it is a little underdeveloped when it comes to the information of certain regions. So essentially, what I just explained a couple of sentences back.

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: