User:Zac56txst/Evaluate an Article
Appearance
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) 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[edit]
- 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.
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
- 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.
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
- 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.
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
- 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.
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
- 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.
Organization evaluation[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
- 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.
Images and media evaluation[edit]
Checking the talk page[edit]
- 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.
Talk page evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
- 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.
Overall evaluation[edit]
Optional activity[edit]
- 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: