User:Wcubias/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Chicago_Fire&action=edit

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
In the article "Tippling Ladies and the Making of Consumer Culture: Gender and Public Space in Fin-de-Siècle Chicago," which we read for class, the Great Chicago Fire was considered to be a important piece of context to better understand the state of Chicago in the early 20th Century. I chose to read this inparticular, as I have little knowledge of the event, and would like to learn more about while also familiarizing myself with Wikipedia editing.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is concise and efficient in its overview of the event. It also addresses the short-term effects, as well as briefing us as to the long-term effects, without going too far in depth on matter.

Given this is a historical event-- especially one that has little to be interpreted-- the content is up-to-date in it's sources and general overview of the event. It also references recent aspects of pop culture that have taken inspiration from the Great Chicago Fire.

The article has a minor bias in its assessment of who started the fire. The common belief is that Catherine O'Leary's cow knocked over a lantern, which started the fire. The author provides important context by noting the anti-Irish sentiment in Chicago, and provides a source as such. To leave it at that would have been my preference. Rather, the author spends the next two paragraphs integrating various sources to assert a culture disdain against O'Leary, and go as far as to label her "the perfect scapegoat." The author only provides one source that explains cultural bias against the O'Leary's, and instead makes grand claims and asserts his/her opinion quite clear.

The sources are quality, with the exception of one, which based on my understanding of Wikipedia, is not entirely the fault of the author. One link labeled "waterworks," directs you to a page titled, "Water Supply," this does not fit the context, as it is said in the article, "A short time after the fire jumped the river, a burning piece of timber lodged on the roof of the city's waterworks."

The article is well strucutred, as it first addresses the facts of the event. Following this, it progresses towards to opinions and cultural impact of the event. This did a great job of tying in each aspect of the Great Chicago Fire.

The images are all significant, and are included in each subheading of the article. They support the text well, and provide the reader with a better understanding of the scale of the Great Chicago Fire.

The talk page discussed the same critiques that I had with the article, regarding the issue of who started the fire. The page acknowledges that the author is not clear as to whether the fire did start in O'Leary's barn, or if it was merely a legend. The conclusion drawn from a speaker on the talk page is that the article asserts that the fire did start from O'Leary's barn, but that the cow kicking over a lantern was fabricated. This was not the impression I got from reading the article, and others on the talk page felt the same.

The Wikipedia article on the Great Chicago Fire utilizes numerous references and statistical sources, in order to cover the event accurately and impartially. Through this, the author exemplifies statistical accuracy and conciseness, the strong points of the article. On the otherhand, the article inserts biases and inconsistencies as to the origin of the fire, and ventures into opinion based writing. The article would be best improved if it clearly asserted either that there is no definitive origin to the fire, or stand in the opinion that it was started by the O'Leary's. Clearly various authors had differing opinions on the matter, which is demonstrated in the differing sentiments throughout the article.