User:TylerSukovski/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: (Breakup of Yugoslavia)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I Chose this article to evaluate because the topic regarding the breakup of Yugoslavia has always been an interest of mine ever since grade 10 history in high school. Also being from one of the former country's that was once apart of Yugoslavia it was something i figured it would be worth evaluating.

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 begins with a sentence that not fully but somewhat states the topic of the article.

- The Lead has an overview of the different reasoning as to why Yugoslavia separated into smaller nations, also with the problems that specifically engaged the separation itself. The information is detailed into different section with in depth analysis and reasoning behind the decisions.

- The lead is a little overly concise but since the topic is so broad and large it is actually pretty good since there is a lot of information that has to be presented after the fact.

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
- The content is all related to the main topic, as it provides different reasoning's and information as to why it happened with in depth information.

- The most recent article was source in 2017, with the rest varying from many different years. There is a lot of the information source from when the breakup was actually happening so it was updated with information provided from those times, since it has evolved it usually make the information reliable.

- It seems that all the content in the article is all relevant, but there is information that could be found that could be potentially added to enhance the articles status of the article.

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 over represented, 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 completely neutral for the most part as it presents all of the facts from a seemingly non-biased view point.

- There are no view points that tend to over represent or under represent because the things that were heavily talked about got the information it needed to explain the situation and those that weren't very important had not as much but still received recognition.

- The article is not very persuasive or try to push those readers but it states the information in a truthful and well organized manner that gives enough information to allow the reader to make assumptions based on what 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
- All of the sources that i took a look at (not all since there was so many) were reliable secondary sources to help the articles credibility

- All of the article are extremely thorough and reflect the literature for the topic at hand

- There are sources that are somewhat current but there is also some that are outdated but they are also reliable due to the fact they were published not far after the breakup of Yugoslavia so the information was somewhat current when being posted

- Yes most of the links still work

Organization

 * Guiding question


 * 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
- The article is,overall, well written and everything is clear, concise, and easy to follow.

- The article doesn't have any really visual grammatical or spelling mistakes

- The article is very well organized and is separated into all the most important sections that help the reader understand the reasoning to why this event happened

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
- The images allow the reader to get a picture of who the article is speaking about

- All the images used are well captioned and adhere to the copyright regulation

- They are not laid out in a very appealing way

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
- This article is a part of many wiki projects

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?

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: