User:Treebranch1789/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?

Battle of the Alamo

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose it because I vaguely knew about the controversies surrounding it and how different it is viewed by both America and Mexico due to what happened. The Wikipedia article on the Alamo matters because it was a major battle in American history due to what happened and also because it involved Santa Anna who was surrounded by controversies. Looking through it, it seems to cover both sides more neutrally than I believed, likely because it is a semi-protected site (which goes to show how prone it is to vandalism). I also liked the Legacy section which mentioned about how the Battle of the Alamo has become a part of American myth.

Evaluate the article

The Lead Section gave a good identification of the article as “a pivotal event and military engagement in the Texas Revolution”, however the rest of the lead section feels a lot of overly detailed information. Although it maintains semi-neutral voice, it could do by expanding the Mexico paragraph in the lead section more and leans towards a more American-biased view in general.

As for the content, it seems up to date and mostly relevant. As for the equity gap though, there are more detailed accounts from the American side than the Mexican side, though the Legacy section helps make up for this by bringing up American perceptions and how film and media have influenced how they view the Battle of the Alamo. A gap to be explored could be how Mexicans currently view the battle in modern times as well as more details on the Mexican side of the battle and this affects the tone and balance of the article.

Many of the sources and references reflect books that can still be accessed, however, many of the sources are repeating the same resources such as “Edmondson (2000)” or “Lindley (2003)”. A majority of these sources seem to be American authors and there are few if not any resources from a Mexican author. The organization and writing is concise, clear and easy to read with few to no errors and it is well-organized by background, events, and legacy. There are also captioned images and media that are laid out in an appealing way.

The talk page and discussions bring up more about topics like “The Alamo and slavery” and discussions about whether or not Jacob Walker actually hid behind Susannah Dickinson or not. However, there is also mentions of how the Alamo battle was actually false and because it’s such a well known event, it makes sense why it’s a semi-protected article. The topic of “the Alamo and slavery” mentions that the Wikipedia article works to paint the Americans as noble liberators and heroes and that they had slaves which contrasted with Mexico’s policies of the abolishment of slavery. There is also mentions of Andrew Jackson wanting Texas to establish slavery more and to grab more land and how there was no mentions of this throughout the article.

The article is viewed as a well-documented article and its strengths are that it covers a lot of information, cites reputable sources, and also includes the legacy and impact with both America and Mexico. However, it could be improved by talking more about the Mexican side of the battle, by varying sources from scholars and resources written by Mexicans or those who are more well-versed on Mexico’s side of the battle, and by including reasons for the battle (once the mentions of Andrew Jackson and slavery in the Talk page have been verified). I think that the article is overall well-developed, but that it suffers from a biased viewpoint that favors the Americans.