User:Brontyjn/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.

Guiding questions: The article clearly indicates the subject of the article and the definition of the sanctuary movement that is used. There is a brief summary of most the sections included in the article, however historical background is missing. The last paragraph of the lead includes information that is not mentioned in that complete section, such as the right to sanctuary. The Lead is concise, but could be reorganized to better reflect the contents of the entire 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?

Guiding questions
The content covers background, public participation, historical significance, and relevant trials. It could expand more on the ideological influence on the movement and more comprehensive statistics and background on the groups involved. The article is fairly up-to-date, but could draw in more sources. The article has the potential to address equity gaps but falls a bit short of representing the background of immigrant and refugees groups.

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?

Guiding questions: The article uses a neutral tone and does not attempt to persuade the reader. It could better involve dissenting opinions on the movement. It barely touches on the impact of international law, and could draw in these positions as well especially as they relate to the trials discussed.

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?

Guiding questions: The sources are reliable but they could be better integrated into the article. The last section needs significantly more citations. Many sources are reused, and a wider range of references could address the information lacking. Overall the article could be improved by higher diversity among sources. The sources are appropriately current and relevant, and the links appear to work.

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?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Guiding questions: The article is fairly well organized, but could be better distributed. The article is well written and flows easily. There are little to no grammatical or spelling errors.

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?

Guiding questions: The article could be improved by inserting more images. The one image used is not well captioned because it does include the artist, title, and date of the painting. The image is in the public domain and does not pose a copyright violation. The image is appealing and relevant to the section it is referring to.

Guiding questions: The are discussions on the talk page about the article been biased by drawing information from press releases. It is rated Start-Class and is involved with the WikiProjects on Human Rights, Hispanic and Latino Americans, and Central America. The talk page differs from the class trainings in that the criticisms towards the author in that it does not include specific issues within the 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?

Guiding questions: The overall impression of the article is that the foundation is pretty strong but the information could be redistributed and expanded upon. It includes the key points of the topics and has incorporated sections appropriately. Additional and more diverse sources should be added. The article is still underdeveloped.

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?

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 — ~~~~