User:Revengemin Button/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 this article because the came caught my eye as I scrolled through the list of articles to evaluate for the class. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was overly brief and limited in depth.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
The lead section had a clear and concise first sentence which does a good job of summarizing the topic of Christians for Socialism. However, the lead section was only two sentences long, the second sentence simply providing the date the organization was founded. The lead section lacks a description of the main sections of the article, and while it says that Christians for Socialism is a focused on addressing economic and social injustice, the article as a whole provides very little detail on how the organization actually does this.
Content
The content is relevant to the topic, but very sparse. The article does not provide any information on the organization in the current day, but neither does it state that the organization met its demise at any point. As noted in the lead section evaluation, there is insufficient content that explains what the organization actually did to address social and economic injustice: the article mentions that the organization supported and was in ideological accord with Chilean President Allende and Fidel Castro, and socialism in general; as well, the article has a section called Gatherings, which informs the reader that the organization hosted several conferences in various countries in Europe, South America, and North America which promoted ideological goals and shared theories with other movements. This article likely should be addressing equity gaps due to the past and present connections between Catholicism, Liberation Theology, and indigenous people in South America. There are a few uncited statements. The content does not contain a description of the structure of Christians for Socialism or lack thereof.
Tone and balance
Tone and balance seem within acceptable parameters.
Sources and references
The sources suffer from the same issue as the content, that is, they are not especially extensive, but at least two of them are books for this class, so that is a good sign.
Organization and writing quality
The organization fits the the content, but since the content is so limited, that is not especially great. There is certainly room for a section which details the geographic extent of the organization, as well as one on its actual views and activities.
Talk page discussion
The talk page is not very long, but it does make clear that even more uncited material has been removed, and that there is debate over how to translate the phrase "socialismo del rostro humano". In 2017, the article was nominated to be Philosophy and religion good article, but did not pass due to significant flaws, it is clear from the description that the article no longer contains material that was present in 2017, including a section called Present Day.