I chose this article because I thought Cuba was an interesting country to know more about. I also wanted to know how Islam is doing in this country and how it got there.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No it does not, it just goes straight into information without introducing the topic to the readers.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really it mentions the places of worship but none about the history or famous Cuban Muslims in the lead.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it goes into population but does not mention the population or how many Muslims are in Cuba again in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed with information that does not belong in the lead but in a section later in the article.
Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article's content is related to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date? Most of the sources are from a few years ago, so not all sources are up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content that is missing like the sections about the population of Muslims in Cuba, the culture Islam affected, the politics about Islam, and the traditions Islam started in Cuba.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No it does not deal with a equity gap. Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It briefly mentions slaves coming to Cuba but does not discuss the topic in depth.
Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral and does not lift or put down a group of people.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I don't see any claims that are heavily biased.
Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints that are underrepresented are the slaves that came to Cuba with Islam.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article does not try to persuade the reader.
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all, some of the links are dead or from books. The others from scientific articles are good but the rest are from not so good sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are 14 sources but some are not accessible. This wiki page needs more thorough sources.
Are the sources current? No, the sources are old.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes, there are many authors and even some sources written in Spanish. Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They do include the slaves that came to Cuba but not in depth.
Check a few links. Do they work? Some worked but most were not working, about 3 or 4 links don't work.
Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but the lead could be better written to be more easy to read and clear.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article is missing some commas, but other than that no spelling errors or serious grammatical errors can be found.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down into sections. The article has sections but not many. Some major points on the topic are missing like beliefs and cultural differences that affected how they worship.
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations in the talk page except from one person who added the origins of Islam in Cuba from Western African slaves.
How is the article rated? Rated Start-class, Mid-importance. Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is apart of Wiki project Cuba and Islam.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The topic is discussed very neutral with sources for every piece of information. It discussed the topic in past terms instead of present.
What is the article's overall status? Needs a lot of work, more sources, images, and sections about the topic.
What are the article's strengths? Good at details and good at giving the facts about certain events.
How can the article be improved? More sources that explain more about the subject and images to help the reader.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is underdeveloped, it needs more sources and sections describing the topic.
