User:HistJOAT/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

American Colonization Society

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The ACS is an interesting organization that thought they were doing the right thing. It included prominent Americans, but was deeply flawed.

Evaluate the article

The history of racial disparity in America is older than the country itself. In “Jefferson Trembling: White Nationalism and the Racial Origins of National Security” by Russ Castronovo, we see how Americans thought, felt, and dealt with what a large number of free black men, women, and children would do to their new United States. The population right away struggled with free white men and enslaved black men. There was fear that all black persons would gain freedom through the Declaration of Independence.

From the signing of the Declaration of Independence white Americans struggled with the prospect of free blacks. There were speeches every July 4th that spoke of the threat of the black population increasing. In census data between 1790 and 1830, the black population had nearly tripled; from just under 700,000 to just over 2 million (Castronovo 373).

One of the main points Castronovo brings up is how studying the population numbers of the black population led to an increase in oppressive tactics. The ACS would project what the population of both free and enslaved blacks would be over the course of the next few decades in the early 1800’s, and work with lawmakers to pass laws to oppress the free blacks. This wasn’t just limited to the south. Northern states were guilty of it too. “These years (1820’s) witnessed a multipronged campaign to restrict black freedom and rights in virtually all aspects of everyday life: transportation, voting, education, ability to purchase property, access to the mails, just to name a few of the repressive effects of what historian Gary Nash described as the rising “Negrophobia” of the era.”

Castronovo also discusses “algorithmic governmentality,” a term coined by Antoinette Rouvroy, a legal philosopher. “Algorithmic governmentality” is using the data to try and control the population. By dehumanizing blacks into numbers and data, that data could be used by white nationalists to further their agendas. Colonizationists would be able to justify the need to transport free blacks to Liberia, all in the name of “national security.”

The biggest fear was that a rising black population would lead to a “white genocide” as their numbers grew. There was a fear that black would retaliate against whites for the way they’ve been treated. A solution: send free black people to Liberia, on the western coast of Africa. White Nationalist and abolitionists saw this as a way to appease the free blacks (hey, we sent you back home!) and a way to stop free blacks from sowing discord among the enslaved.

But perhaps the biggest point, and the one for which this article is named for, comes from Thomas Jefferson himself. “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events.” Jefferson here is admitting the enslavement of black people is wrong and has been wrong. His fear is that the free black population will revolt. This message becomes adopted by the ACS and is their primary reason for wanting to ship black people back to Africa.