User:MayaColohan/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?

1st Moroccan Division (1939)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The first and foremost reason is because this article caught my interest. I was curious about the role of African based infantry divisions in World War 2, something which isn’t typically discussed or seen within the overall history of World War 2. It’s important to make infantries like these seen and credited for their part in the war.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The lead section is fairly short. It has a decent introductory sentence, explaining briefly what the 1st Moroccan Division was. It does not, however, include an abstract of each section of the article that follows. The only major section mentioned and linked within the lead section is The Battle of Gembloux.

Content: The article is relatively short, but remains relevant to the topic throughout each of its major sections. There is a section for each of the major battles that the division has participated in, and has details on the division itself at the very end. I found this to be confusing, and I believe it would be better if the article were to organize the sections so that the information of the division itself (composition, artillery, infantry, division commanders, etc) would come before the details of each battle. To add to this, there was no information about the said details of the division anywhere in the lead section.

Tone and Balance: The tone of the article is relatively neutral, if not slightly biased towards the 1st Moroccan Division. In some parts of the article, however, the writing seems to be styled to sound a little dramatic, as though it is trying to tell a story about the division rather than provide information about it.

Sources and References: There are only two sources, and both of them are in French. Though I wasn’t able to read either of the sources because of the language, one appears to be from a book dating back to 1952. The other led to a website of memoirs, but the specific page linked in Wikipedia was not found. It is questionable whether or not these sources are reliable.

Organization and Writing Quality: There are a number of spelling errors within the article; the dates are lacking in the ‘th’ suffix at the end of numbers, and there are some spaces within sentences where a comma could be added. The writing style sounds informal at times, and is vague in sections which could potentially be relevant. For example, in the paragraph explaining the Battle of Gembloux it is written: “---orders were given for retreat along the V.F de Tilly; a difficult maneuver.” Simply stating it was difficult and not focusing on the effect the struggles of this retreat could have had on the infantry feels lacking. There are a couple of runalong sentences as well as sentences that feel shorter than necessary and out of place.

Images and Media: There’s not many images in the article. One is of a member of the 1st Moroccan Division, while the rest is a collection of photos depicting commemorative plaques to the division. While the context of these images are explained further within the article, the captions are vague and may have readers confused about the images without the article.

Talk Page Discussion: The article is part of the WikiProject Africa and the Military History WikiProject. There is no discussion about the article, and the talk page is overall very blank.

Overall Impression: The article does a moderate job talking about 1st Moroccan Division considering how little known the topic is, but could definitely use some improvement. The article did the best at providing information for the battles that the division participated in, but was generally unorganized and confusing in most other sections of the article. Both of the sources were questionable, and are most likely outdated. The article could definitely be improved one way or another in each of its key aspects.