User:1rnatarajan/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article[edit]
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Berlin Conference
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate the article on the Berlin Conference because it is an extremely significant moment in African history and its coverage on Wikipedia deserves to be strong.
Lead[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation: The lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise and descriptive. It does not make explicit reference to the sections of the article, however, it does mention some of the topics that will be discussed. There is no information in the lead that is not revisited later in the article. Overall, the lead is concise and not overly detailed.[edit]
Content[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Content evaluation: The content of the article is relevant and up-to-date. Because the event being discussed happened in the 19th century, it is difficult to continually find new sources with new information. The only missing content I would point out is any information about the reaction of the African people to this conference. Though this information could be difficult to find, I think it would significantly strengthen the article.[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation: The article approaches the topic in a neutral fashion. However, as I previously stated, the under-representation of the African viewpoint weakens the article as a whole. That being said, there are no heavily biased claims or claims that intend to persuade the reader towards a particular viewpoint.[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: The facts in the article are backed up by reliable and thorough sources. The most recent source was published in 2015. However, this is not an issue because the event in question happened from 1884-1885, so it is unlikely that new information on the subject will emerge. The links to the sources are working.[edit]
Organization[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Organization evaluation: The article is well-written and easy to understand. There are no spelling or grammar errors and the content is well-organized and simple to follow.[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Images and media evaluation: The article includes a few political cartoons and a map showing the newly divided African continent. The political cartoons could have more descriptive captions that explain the meaning of the images. All of the images follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are mostly laid out in an appealing way. The images could be larger, but there is an option to manually enlarge them.[edit]
Checking the talk page[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Talk page evaluation: The most recent conversations about this article are about the labeling of the free states following the conference and the need for a map to supplement the article. However, there has not been any new conversations since 2018. The article is rated as Start-class, High-importance in the WikiProjects of the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany and as Start-class, Top-importance in the Africa / Morocco WikiProject. Overall, this article gives more details about the event than we learned in class. However, the article does not try to contextualize the event like we did. It focuses more on the facts of the event, while we instead discussed its consequences and effects on the region following the division of the continent.[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Overall evaluation: The article is strong in providing factual information about the conference and the participants. Specifically, it does well to discuss the motivations of the relevant European powers. However, the article could be improved by adding more information about the context and the effects of the conference. Also, the article should include more information from the African perspective, though it may be tough to find. In all, I would say the article is well-developed, but it just needs some additions in certain areas.[edit]
Optional activity[edit]
- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: