User:Zac56txst/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: (link) Armenian–Jewish relations
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It is an obscure topic, and race-related articles may present biased information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, the introductory sentence is weak and does not effectively explain the subject.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not. It is only one sentence in length.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but not in an intentional and deliberate manner.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly concise and inadequate.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Mostly within the 21st century. Some sources are from the late 20th.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The section on Armenian-Jewish relations is irrelevant to the subject.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it deals with a minority race.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is largely pro-Armenian.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article seems to be biased towards the Armenians.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Relatively balanced on view points, but strays significantly towards the Armenian point.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Attempt towards the Armenian side.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, many of the facts are pulled from independent web sites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, many of the websites are superficial in their analysis of the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are, however others are decades old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They are. Many are written by Armenians, Jews, and Turks.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is broken up into disjointed chunks.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Partly. It could be improved, and two sections could be removed entirely.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Other users have identified this article as being sub par.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-Class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There are several bots that have left messages.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Sub par, graded C-Class. It is not up to the standards of Wikipedia.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It represents a marginalized point of view.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It needs to be rewritten entirely. It copies too much from the sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped.

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: