User:TylerLight/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Operation Barras

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I originally decided to choose this article to evaluate because it happened on the same day that I was born. It matters to me because I have always had a strong interest in military special forces, in particular, spec ops rescue missions. Before I read it for the first time, I was quite excited to read it, since readings of these types have always intrigued me.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

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?

Yes, it is a little long, though.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It might be a bit over detailed.

Content

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content up-to-date?

Somewhat, it was last updated about two weeks ago.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There were a couple of details that could have been removed from the article, especially in the “Aftermath” section.

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

Somewhat, it spoke of a rebel faction that was against their government.

Tone and Balance

Is the article from a neutral point of view?

For the most part, yes (see next question).

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes, it leans a bit towards the British perspective.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Slightly, the British perspective feels like the only one.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Not really

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Not really

Sources and References

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

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

It appears to be so.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, a couple of scholarly articles regarding the article’s topic were found.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization & Writing Quality

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, it was quite easy to read, other than a couple of advanced military terms.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There were very few run-ons, but nothing too drastic.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

This article was organized nicely. In a way, readers were briefed with the backstory of situation, told how the plan was prepared/executed, and were provided a conclusion, in which the impact of the situation was discussed.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes

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

Talk Page Discussion

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

A couple of individuals have conflicting ideas, in which they feel that there are details that the article is missing.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated as FA-Class and of Low-Importance. Also, it is supported by WikiProject Sierra Leone.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Not sure, we have not talked about this in class yet.

Overall Impressions

What is the article's overall status?

Overall, the article seems well-developed and quite detailed.

What are the article's strengths?

The article has a lot of detail, and it did a good job of explaining what happened before, during, and after the event.

How can the article be improved?

To improve the article, it would nice to have a bit of added information from the civilians who were involved with the operation. Also, it would be interesting to hear from the rebel faction members as well.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is extremely detailed, in which some of the details may not be necessary. In other words, it may be a bit overdeveloped.