User:Tswptd/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: 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I like the Civil War, and find it interesting. So I decided to choose an article that was interesting to me.

Lead
The article presents a lot of information about the 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry's actions. There is a good topic sentence that introduces what the article was about. The Lead in for the article did not discuss the major sections of the article. And I believe the Lead is concise enough to get to the point of what the 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry was, but not what they did.


 * 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?

Content
The content was very relevant to the article's subject. As far as I know, the article is up to date and does not seem to be missing information. The only information that I would like to see in there is more about what individuals were actually part of the 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry. Were there important people in it? Did they make significant contributions to the war effort?


 * 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?

Tone and Balance
The tone was neutral throughout the article. Nothing was mentioned that made me think the article was biased towards anything or anyone. Since this article just mentions what the 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry did and where they went, no viewpoints were represented at all.


 * 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?

Sources and References
There are only two sources referenced by the article. The references do seem to be reliable. And all of the facts in the article are supported the references. And all of the links work on the article.


 * 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?

Organization
The article is very concise and to the point. However, it is just a list that says what the 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry did and where they marched to. Some of the battles and such could be broken down into further sections with more detail. And I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors throughout the article.


 * 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?

Images and Media
This article contains no images.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page
There are no discussions going on on the talk page of the article. The article is rated C-class and of low-importance.


 * 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
The article seems to have a lot of facts about what the 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry did and where they went. However, not so much about the individuals in it, and the accomplishments they had throughout the war. The article could be improved by providing more references, adding some sections about the actual battles fought by the 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry throughout the war, and having some discussions on the talk page. Overall I would agree with the Wikipedia rating, and say that this article is still a little underdeveloped.


 * 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?

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: