User:Aethernolt/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]While looking through C-Class articles under the topic of international relations, noticed the Atlantic Charter, and having (relatively) an understanding of impact/history here, decided it would be a suitable candidate. Cursory examination makes it look like while the content is relatively well sourced, more attention could be given to impact/an expansion on the brief analysis provided. Considering that the Atlantic Charter (and relatedly Atlanticism as a concept) has set the stage for much of our understanding of international relations through the second half of the 20th century, there is certainly additional content to add.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The introduction and background section are both of an appropriate length, but these concrete facts are the only solidly represented section of the article. The participants section, for instance, is merely a list of people and their titles, while the content and analysis section lists out the eight clauses of the charter and two sentences of analysis on specifically the fourth clause, sans citation. The various impact sections not only show a distinct focus on the British Empire but also contains several statements that appear to be speculation or opinion written by an editor, like:
- In Tokyo, the Atlantic Charter rallied support for the militarists in the Japanese government, which pushed for a more aggressive approach against the United States and Britain.
- The problems came not from Germany and Japan but the allies that had empires and so resisted self-determination, especially the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, and the Netherlands.
Additionally, while there are quite a few scholarly books cited, some of the citations lack page numbers and there are still uncited comments in the article.
Overall, the article, while factually accurate, provides little appropriate discussion of the impact of the Atlantic Charter, even with a substantial number of sources. Recent edits have focused on the New Atlantic Charter, which, while appropriate, the provided sections lack any real comparison of the two beyond the title. Expansion of the article should likely start with the charter itself, and a more thorough analysis of its contents (and their individual impacts/origins) rather than speculation on the general impact of its signing.