User:Uh139208/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article which I am evaluating is the article"Armenians in the Ottoman Empire"

(Link is provided here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am extremely interested in Middle-Eastern history and have been fascinated by so many aspects of the regions history be it in modern times or during times of centuries past. One such area that has long since fascinated me is the Ottoman Empire. How they maintained their long reign, their cultures and traditions & the general history of the Ottoman Empire has been of long interest to me.

The role of Armenians within the Ottoman Empire is another topic that is of great interest to me. Seeing how Armenians lived from the early days under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and eventually the subsequent growing hostility that occurred between both sides is a subject that is fascinating to explore, particularly when understanding the complex relationship between Armenians and the Ottomans while under Ottoman rule had been fomenting amongst the sides over the period of multiple centuries.

It is of course important to understand the lives of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire. Researching this Armenian history can better aid in understanding the context of crucial events that occurred over the duration of both sides history.

The article as of now is quite brief and short. It has only 6 lines and these lines serve as an extremely brief abstract of the large and event ridden history of Armenias within the Ottoman Empire. Providing further in-depth additional information of the Armenian lives during the Ottoman Empire is certainly something which will only aid in the better understanding of this topic provided of course, that the information used is quality source materials.

It is hoped that the information provided by myself and my team member will ultimately provide an in-depth albeit still relatively brief accurate historical depiction of Armenian lives during the Ottoman Empire.

Lead Section
Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence immediately begins with describing how during the rule of Selim II, Armenia became an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. It is quite quick in jumping straight into the topic. It certainly could provide an introductory sentence to set the stage more appropriately.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

This is essentially entirely lacking from the article, which is unsurprising for what is ultimately a 5 line article. This will need to be added.

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

Essentially, the article consists of only a 5 line lead section, so it is safe to say that yes, the article does indeed include many pieces of information that is not present or elaborated on in the overall article.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead piece is ultimately too concise, as is naturally the entire article.

Content
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Within the brief 5 line article, the content is relevant to the topic. It essentially summarises the Armenians lives under the Ottomans and stays relevant. It is of course intrinsically very brief with it being only the aforementioned 5 lines but it does however stay relevant. Of course, as mentioned, this content certainly needs adding too.

Is the content up-to-date?

The page was last changed on the 9th of March 2015. While the article essentially discusses the lives of Armenians between essentially the 15th to 20th Century, there is constantly new information and sources that is enriching our knowledge and information of Armenians lives under this Ottoman time period. The article being 7 years old surely means that there is at least some new information which could potentially be provided to improve the contents of the article.

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

As mentioned, the article is only 5 lines long. Clearly the article is lacking a vast amount of content particularly when considering the history of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire spans a monumental 5 centuries. The article clearly lacks everything in relation to its content.

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

The article "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" certainly qualifies as an article which addresses Wikipedia's equity gaps. Armenians within the Ottoman Empire is largely a topic which falls in line with being a historically underrepresented and misunderstood topic. As well as the topic itself, Armenians as a population are also largely understudied in the Western World, of course the construction of an appropriately in-depth article will intrinsically help people understand the Armenian population to a greater extent, when the article delves into topics such as Armenian culture, language, religious customs etc.

Tone and Balance
Is the article neutral?

The article remains historically factual and neutral in its brief entirety.

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

Everything claimed in its brief 5 lines is historically accurate and does not appear heavily biased toward any particular side. The only remotely controversial topic mentioned is the 'Armenian Genocide' in 1915, which despite being accepted as a genocide by most countries in the world, it is still a highly controversial topic within Turkey and thus this may appear as biased in this specific instance. Overall however, in my opinion it is not biased and remains steeped in historical factual account.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Its briefness ultimately dictates that the article serves as a summary and thus views are largely under represented from both sides and all aspects.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Again, I will simply repeat that the articles briefness ultimately dictates that it serves as a summary and thus views are largely under represented from all sides and aspects, whether it mainstream viewpoints or minority/fringe viewpoints.

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

The article remains neutral as mentioned and does not persuade the reader to be in favour of one position over another unless as mentioned above previously if one identified as someone who did not recognise the Armenian Genocide. This is the case for example within certain elements of Turkish nationalist communities. In this instance and specific case these readers may say the article attempts to persuade the reader by simply mentioning the term 'Armenian Genocide'. However, for the 99.9% this article reads as a non-persuasive 5 line summary of historical fact.

Sources and References
Ultimately, there is NO reference or source in this 5 line article. As previously mentioned a Wikipedia article should be using the best possible sources available for the topic at hand whether it is through academic literature, journals or peer-reviewed publications. An extensive references list is something that will certainly needed to be added to this article to ensure the text presented is the most reliable, unbiased and historically factual piece as possible.

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

The article is ultimately far too short and lacks everything a quality Wikipedia article consists of. With it being only 5 lines, one can safely assume that it is far too concise and brief. While it is clear and easy to read, it is obviously seriously lacking any serious reflection and detail necessary to cover such a vast topic of 5 centuries of Armenian history within the Ottoman Empire. It is clearly, far too concise.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Ultimately, the article does not have any notable grammar or spelling errors. There is perhaps some punctuation issues with the placements of certain commas for example. However, the briefness of the article presupposes the lack of grammatical and spelling errors.

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

The fact that the article is ultimately a lead section of 5 lines already answers this question. The article is of course completely unorganized and far too brief. This briefness means that there are no headings or sub-headings, no specific breakdowns of sections where the most crucial aspects of Armenian history within the Ottoman Empire is discussed. Ultimately, this will all have to be constructed during the articles re-construction. Without clear breakdowns in sections and sub-headings, the article will ultimately lack a cohesive structure and timeline. This will only serve to hurt the articles overall quality and readability.

Images and Media
This article has no image included. Of course, this is another negative component to the article. A good Wikipedia page that is plentiful in reliable information will usually also have within it a plethora of images that are relevant to the event in question. Ultimately, these images can help readers visually grasp these historic events better while at the same time serve to ultimately clarify that the authors historical depictions of events are indeed factual. Images will certainly be added to the reconstructed article.

Talk page discussion
There is currently not any conversations or talkpages discussing this topic with Wikipedia noting that it "does not have a talk page with this name". The article is also seemingly not currently rated. It is ultimately part of the Wikipedia Category - 'History of Armenia'.

Overall impressions
Overall, the article is obviously extremely limited in the fact that it is a mere 5 lines long. It is ultimately far too brief, and short lacking the necessary detail which one would expect considering the topic is concerned with a 500+ year rich and event filled history. The article ultimately needs to be constructed with detail, where headings and sub-headings are present. These headings would ultimately be within a timeline of events that would cover for instance the early years of Armenian lives under Ottoman rule in the 1500s, to then the 1600s, the 1700s etc. As previously mentioned, the more reputable sources and references are used the more legitimate and unbiased the article ultimately will be. This will needed to also be added to improve the article. Images should also be accompanied with the article as to help the readers visualise the real history that occurred as well as legitimising the information that I myself as an author am divulging. The article as of now, stands completely underdeveloped, as well as poorly developed, as I have alluded to throughout this evaluation. Unfortunately, the briefness of the article greatly hindered the evaluation of the article and it was extremely difficult ultimately to not to refer to this flaw repetitively ad-nauseam. Ultimately, it is clear that there is much work to be done to improve the quality, depth, detail and overall depiction of this Wikipedia article "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire".