User:FootnoteObserver/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]I chose to evaluate this article, since it is related to the course that I am taking. It is also an important event in the Ukrainian cultural memory. The article is not very long, which is surprising given the complexity of the events that were happening.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
- The lead provides a brief overview of the topic, and it presents the outcomes of the Ukrainian-Soviet war in a balanced way.
Content
- The article's content is relevant to the topic.
- The article would benefit from a more detailed discussion on some topics and the expansion of certain sub-topics. For example, there is a sub-topic about the post-Hetmanate intervention, but there is no prior information or references to the Hetmanate state. There is also no information about Universals. The article would benefit from the inclusion of such topics, as pogroms, and other population experience during the war.
- The article addresses a significant historical event that has implications for understanding the experiences of Ukrainians, a group that has been historically underrepresented.
Tone and Balance
- The article seems to have a neutral tone and it mentions how the events are understood by Soviet and Ukrainian historiographies, although it does not provide references to examples of such historiographies.
Sources and References
- Not all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The substantial part of the article does not have references. For example, in the sub-topic "January 1919–June 1919" there is a quote by Chicherin but the source of this quote is not present.
- Some links do not work. For example, in the sub-topic "December 1917–April 1918", it mentions the Battle of Kruty and when discussing the number of schoolboys who participated, it says that "some sources give a figure of 300" but the link to the source is broken. Some references, such as 7 and 8, do not work.
- Some references are quite outdated, and there is almost no references to the contemporary scholarship. The article would also benefit from the academic Ukrainian sources, rather than news outlets (such as referense 20 to www.ukrinform.ua ).
Organization and writing quality
- The article is well-organized, however it is obvious that it is kind quite raw. For example, the sub-topic "Important documents" under the Historiography section is quite schematic, and the sub-topic "Rebellion states" containts 2 sentences.
- The article is underdeveloped.
The talk page
- The article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
- It is a part of such WikiProjects, as Military History, Ukraine, Russia, Soviet Union, European history.
- There is quite a bit of rhetoric going on in the "Talks" section. There is also a conversation about the proper terminology (is it a civil war, the war between states, the Ukrainian-Soviet War, etc.)