User:PGChem 300/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?

I am evaluating an article about the Sikh Genocide in Punjabi 1984. The following is the link to the article: 1984 anti-Sikh riots (this version).

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I am evaluating this article because I have a cloud of background knowledge from reputable sources and I think I could make edits and changes that could help strengthen the article. In my perspective it matters because it represents the history of Sikhs in Punjab, which as a first generation Canadian, I need to be involved with learning about and contributing to. My preliminary impression of the article was that it has a detailed structure in terms of timelines as well as political, social, economic, and religious perspective surrounding the genocide. It shows all views of the parties involved including the families of the affected individuals, governments, and people of official positions with different stances regarding the issues described.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The first sentence describes the Sikh Genocide and it's main causes very precisely without beginning to mix up the different aspects involved. The lead introduces the main storyline of this historical event with surface type details which is good for someone trying to grasp an overview of the topic. I would say that the lead is well put together and is not overly concise as it describes the major parties involved as well as begins giving background information that a reader needs to hear before diving in deeper to the next few sections of the article.

Content

The article's content is very deep and very relevant to the topic. This content represents timelines correctly and is up to date given it begins talks of the Canadian government in the year 2024 about genocide recognition, suggesting that editors are continuously refreshing this important article. The Sikh community was essentially represented with transparency in this article giving attention to details such as the Khalistan Movement as well as the the people involved internationally even if on a smaller and later scale on the timeline of events.

Tone and Balance

This article is generally neutral even though the Indian government's logistics are used in a couple different areas while independent reviews suggest a multiplication of the figures presented which pose a slight bias not in terms of political reference but in terms of the data that is available to the public and has not been tangled to skew a more bias view. This article states that multiples investigation commissions have been established to explore different investigative perspectives thus balancing out the need for teams representing all view points. For example, the underrepresented minority group of Sikhs for Justice also filed a civil suit in the US accusing the Indian government of encouraging rioters and not employing legal grounds for safety and rather allowing for a "purge" to take place. I felt this was very important to have as a point of view as most of the other commissions target personnel rather than the government that was appointed and ruling at that time. The article misrepresents the scale to which these riots took place as reading other sources and first-person interviews and encounters with families, the numbers of missing persons and murdered persons from crematoriums report different numbers. For example, Jaswant Singh Khalra, a prominent Sikh human rights activist who researched illegal killings by the Punjab Police in 1984 and who also spoke in the Canadian Parliament about this issue has not been mentioned at all when he should be linked to this article page as his findings unveiled the injustices many Sikh families faced.

Sources and References

There are about 150 resources that have been cited at the end of the article and many are scholarly, peer-reviewed pieces of information. Though this article links to news articles at that time which represent bias in the favor of the government, in a case like this, it's important to review such references to cross-examine against other sources. Other resources include supreme court documents and court hearings on an international level. The sources represent all viewpoints established in the article though sources like The Times of India may represent a political view given their stance on other Sikh-related issues. The sources are timed from the timings of the Genocide itself to current reviews occurring in India, Canada, and other countries across the globe.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing is clear and concise and has to detectable grammatical issues. Though the article should have more spread out subtopics, it represents most viewpoints and represents a fairly accurate timeline of events.

Images and Media

The article does not include many images for better representation and engagement of the reader. It only includes 2 when other pictures such as the Golden Temple, Indira Gandhi, and many more. Images are not well-captioned and only include a basic sentence. Images are not laid out properly to fully portray all viewpoints and work is needed on this aspect of the article.

Talk Page Discussion

The main conversation occurring is whether this issue should be recognized as a "genocide" or continue being recognized as a "riot" that occurred in history. This article is extremely sensitive and is constantly in dispute and is very controversial so it is asked that only factual information be added without disturbing the neutrality of the article. The article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Wikipedia is extremely cautious about keeping this article factual rather than biased as compared to other topics that may not be so controversial in today's world.

Overall Impressions

This article is well-composed and addresses all viewpoints. It's main strength is the continued neutrality of all parties but it's weakness is the lack of illustrations and pictures for engagement of the reader through a visual perspective. It is currently well-developed can can be fully developed by continued refreshment according to recent discoveries and international recognitions.