User:QiwenJiang/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link) Trail of Tears: (Trail of Tears)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
I recently learned a topic of race, power and identity in my anthropology class. "Trail of Tears" is the best example that revealed a tragedy of Indians caused by the interaction of race and power.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise, it showed a clear summary and key points of "Trail of Tears".

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Is the article neutral? Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of them are backed up with resources, but some data are questioned in talk page.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
Are the sources current? Yes.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They don't include historically marginalized individuals.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work.

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

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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a conversation about the actual number of death toll.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article has been rated as C-Class. It is a part of many WikiProjects, such as WikiProjects of Alabama and WikiProject of History.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article included more information than I learn in class. For example, I learn how Indians were forced to leave their homeland by Anglo-American. But this article showed briefly how the member of Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw were forced to move west.

What is the article's overall status? Good.
What are the article's strengths? Gives a clear Lead, well-organized and separate into sections that help people easier to understand.
How can the article be improved? Can find more resources to prove an accurate data.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed.

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 — ~~~~