User:Trsv0/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.


 * Preah Vihear Temple
 * I chose this article because for my project, I was interested in making a film about Lowell's own "Little Cambodia".

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, the lead opens up with a brief overview of the main topic of this article, it talks about the history of how the temple came to be while also giving more detailed information on their dispute with Vietnam. No, everything that was in the Lead will then be discussed in a more detailed order later on in the article. The lead is pretty concise and gets straight to the point with not a significant amount of details that would overwhelm you.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article is definitely relevant to the topic, it goes over information about the temple such as the history, location, and architecture of the temple. The content is up to date with the latest information recorded in the 2010s. I don't think there is any information that is missing or does not belong in this article. I personally think the Preah Vihear Temple is one of the more underrepresented topics as not much people know about it but I am glad to see so much information gathered for this topic.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is definitely neutral, it is just informative and stating facts about a certain topic with no arguments made. There were not claims that stood with a particular position. I was unable to find any claims or persuasion in this article as it was just stating facts about the history of it.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Yes, they used a lot of reliable secondary source for this article and made sure to cite almost every information they got. There are many different sources used and they are current to this topic. Many historical individual were a part of this article and their information/knowledge was also included. I checked a few links and they all worked just fine with the related information in their websites.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Yes, it is not so overwhelming enough where you can't get the information out of the article, but it has the right amount of information written a certain way where it's easy to find and understand.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes it includes a lot of images that supports the information beside it. The captions are short and straight to the point which is very helpful in order to understand what we are looking at. The images were all to the right side which really helped with the organization of the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

I actually found this article part of the Cambodia WikiProject and they were discussing about merging it with another article. I'm surprised people are so polite and respectful of each other's opinions. I haven't seen a discussion page with this much manners, I did see a few arguments going on about the controversy of Thailand's property and Cambodia, but it was well disputed with facts. I did see some bias between the two countries as we would also see in real life, but they will then dispute it with actual facts and decide to go with that information instead of their own emotions.


 * 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

The article has a lot of information not much people would know about, but it gets straight to the point with included details if needed. I personally think that if the pictures were bigger, it would intrigue more viewers because at first, I didn't even notice the pictures. The article is definitely well-developed as some parts are really controversial to this day, but it is disputed through gathered information. I really like that there are people who disagreed and had arguments in the Talk section because then it shows that the article had both sides and is not biased.


 * 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?

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: