User:Wikipedianick10/Evaluate an Article

Roscosmos (Russian State Coroporation for Space Activities)
I have chosen this article simply because I would like to know more about this organization, and eventually a great deal about it.

Lead evaluation
The lead section does a good job of presenting what exactly Roscosmos is and the major element of its formation over the years leading to its current status in government. It however does not present a good idea of what facets, history, and significant events and projects will be discussed in the body of the article. It is concise enough to present an idea of how the organization developed within Russian society over time, but does feature details about this history that are presented no where else in the article, and these dates and such could be considered unnecessary.

Content
Content evaluation

All of the content in the main body is relevant to the topic, yet in terms of specifics, it is only up to date to around the year 2018. Content about project goals, Roscosmos' role within the government, and the structural changes to the agency over time seem to be missing. Otherwise, all the details seem to appliciable to the modern Roscosmos.

Tone and Balance

 * Tone and balance evaluation

For the most part, the article is objective and neutral, given the nature of the topic. Some claims come from secondary sources realted the the Russian establishment, making negative claims regarding Roscosmos as an organization and the individuals of Roscosmos. The claims are allegatory in nature, yet do not seem to have a particularly heavy bias. Since there are no citations from secondary sources that are awarding Roscosmos with praise or claiming it is an outlier amoung world agencies, we can say a subjective negative viewpointed of Roscosmos is overrepresented in comparison to the opposite viewpoint. Since the article convers a currently non-controversial topic, the article is not trying to persuade the reader of any position.

Sources and References
Sources and references evaluation

Not all or even a majority of the facts in the article are backed up by secondary sources, with some modern information in the content being assumptions or generalizations of recent developments in Roscosmos. It is hard to judge the available modern literature, as well as literature in the past, decades ago when Roscosmos would have been formed. However, one can easily assume there would be more widely available literature about the history of Roscosmos than the article leads one to believe. For the most part, the sources are current up to the year 2018. Fortunatly, multiple tested links do function.

Organization

 * Organization evaluation

This reader finds the article generally clear, concise, and easy to read. However, due to some lacking details that connect the historical points of Roscosmos, at times, it is hard to follow the history and reasoning behind the activities and operations over time of Roscosmos. Grammatically, the article is well-written. The sections are well organized into the main points, yet it would help if some sections were added to discuss the history and beginnings of certain projects of Roscosmos.

Images and Media

 * Images and media evaluation

The article has good inages of some Roscosmos facilities, construction, and spacecraft, although it would help if some images were included of Roscosmos personnel in action. Fortunately, all the images follow the copyright guidelines; the article would benefit from some larger, significantly visually appealing images.

Checking the talk page
Talk page evaluation

The majority of conversations on the talk page include specific reasoning behind facts about the total work of Roscosmos as an organization, as well as how it should be named and classified as an article. A notable topic of discussion is wether or not the article should be duplicated to an article under another name or not.

The article is classified as a C-class in the spaceflight wiki-project, and the Russian Science and Engineering wiki-project. We have discussed similar talk page discussions, especially the validity of secondary-sources and which facts from the sources should be included.

Overall impression
I think the article overall is a complete, strong article, yet it needs serious improvements.

The strength of the article is its organization, sources, and specific facts and details.

The article needs to be updated to reflect the most pressing needs expressed in the talk page.

As said previously, the article is complete and well-written, yet needs some significant improvements.