User:Patrick Dooris/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: (Siege of Boston)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I've been reading an account of the revolutionary war recently and was fascinated by how many moving parts were involved in this conflict in particular.
Lead
- Guiding questions
The first sentence gives a matter of fact definition of the event. Subsequent sentences in the lead give an abbreviated version of the article as a whole and doesn't provide information that isnt later elaborated on in the article.
- 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
Content
- Guiding questions
The content of the article is very up to date with the last edit being February 8, 2020. There are no sections of the article that isn't relevant to the topic at hand.
- 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
Tone and Balance
- Guiding questions
The article is impressively unbiased given the topic at hand. It never gives an opinion on who was "justified" or "in the right" during the conflict and keeps its content strictly to the event its self rather than the ideals of either side.
- 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
Sources and References
- Guiding questions
The article contains 85 footnotes and every claim is punctuated by one. The links in the footnotes are functional, however two of the authors referenced, McCullough and French, are perhaps overreppresented compared to others. The most recent source cited is from 2009 which may also raise concerns about how current the scholarship is.
- 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
Organization
- Guiding questions
The article is well written and gives a concise summery of the event. I could not find any grammatical errors and while the final sections are brief they are minor details in comparison to the bulk of the article and provide links to other articles on the site that cover the topics more in depth.
- 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
Images and Media
- Guiding questions
The article is enhanced by the images provided especially so by the detailed maps of the troop positions during the conflict. Other images are later paintings either of generals or the conflict its self which gives a more colorful picture of the time period. The images are accurately captioned and are not distracting in their format.
- 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
Checking the talk page
- Guiding questions
Most of the discussion are questions on minor details like exact military terms, some debate on the relevance of some generals verses others, and talk about edits like removing pictures that were irreverent to the article or not on topic. The article is part of the Boston Campaign Series and is officially rated as a "good article".
- 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
Overall impressions
- Guiding questions
The status of the article is very professional. The popularity of the subject almost certainly has alot to do with how well done the scholarship is. The biggest strength of the article is summarizing a very complicated conflict in a concise and easy to follow manner. If the article could be improved in any way additional visuals of the conditions of the army on both sides would help the reader get a better picture in their head. Overall this article is very complete and there is little if anything to add.
- 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
Optional activity
- 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: