User:RachelLakhan/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) Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- It was assigned.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the Lead included an introductory sentence that summed up what the entire article was going to be covering. Since it was just one sentence, it wasn't possible to have included all the information needed, but it was clear and concise.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, there is a description of the few sections that the article was going to cover. This was found in the content box.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- This article was not too overly detailed at all. It was straight to the point of how a Islamic group wanted to spread their ways of Jihad in Western Africa. That was the topic and that is what was given to the readers.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the articles content is relevant to the topic. The article, "Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa" has relevant content that gives the readers a background knowledge of where and when the MOJWA started and their gradual movement in Africa.
Is the content up-to-date?
- In regards to datings, based on the article the MOJWA terrorist group started in 2011 and ended in 2013. Looking at the references used to write this article, they range from 2012- 2016, which does imply that the content given is in fact up to date and has also went forward in time to recap on the past events.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Not sure

Is the article neutral?
- Since the group that the article was based on were terrorists that was killing innocent lives for the goal of spreading their way of living, in the end this wasn't a neutral article. Although the author managed to just state the facts of it all, however, the readers are always going to side against the MOJWA group just based on their affiliations and what they stand for.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- The few claims that might have appeared to be heavily biased towards a particular position would be the captivity and killings of innocent lives by the MOJWA group to numerous countries.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- The only viewpoints that would be underrepresented would be those of the MOJWA group. The reason of why they're killing and capturing these people would give the readers another perspective to go on.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- Not really attempt to persuade the readers, but give the readers more information on organizations that carry the same goals of the major terrorist groups in which they, the readers, had already known.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Looking at the sources used, it can be concluded that these facts came from sources that were in fact reliable. These sources included, mostly news channels, journals, and books.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- These sources came from sources all over the world, news outlets from the USA, France, Britain, and the Middle East which shows how thorough the research was in finding different or similar information from all around the World.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, these sources ranges in dates from 2012 to 2016.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, majority of the links do work, however, one of the sources URL could not have been found, maybe the year (2012), was long ago or other issue. Other than that one source, all of the others were working and opened up to news channels and journals.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, this was an easy to read article, clear and went straight to the point.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No, not that I have seen.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, there is a table of content that shows the breaking down of each section.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- At first glance, the only images are the flags of the countries that had a relation to the MOJWA, but when reading if there was an organization or influential person it would be connected with a link that displayed that organizations flag or persons image.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes, there is a short description of what an organization is or who a person is.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- They need to be viewed upon.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- I don't think many people are going to read this article and try to find ways against it.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is a part of 6 WikiProjects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

What is the article's overall status?
- The overall status of this article is very informative, well written, and very reliable.
What are the article's strengths?
- The overall strength is that it goes straight to the point of what the article is trying to say. It's clear and easy to read and not lengthy at all.
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly 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 — ~~~~