User:Eungjeonglee/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?[edit]

John Yoo

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

I chose the article about John Yoo, intrigued by the figure's short yet critical portray in Vice (2018 film), bringing the film's climax and drafting the Torture Memos. My preliminary impression was that Wikipedia's timeline was filled with the figure's achievements and the hyperlinks were particularly helpful.

Evaluate the article[edit]

The article is rated as C-class on the WikiProject Biography and the WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area. It is part of the WikiProject Korea; however, it has not been rated.

Everything within the article is relevant to John Yoo, the topic of the article. The article remained neutral with an sufficient amount of quotations. The claims are without adjectives involved, yet dedicated a massive portion to the figure's controversy and dissenters. The links from the citations are all working except one pdf under the bibliography section, where stated that John Yoo has contributed the chapter "Enemy Combatants and the Problem of Judicial Competence" to the book Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution: Debating the Enemy Combatant Cases by Peter Berkowitz, published by Hoover Institution Press in 2005. The sources listed are all related to the comprehensive understanding of the figure. Nevertheless, the source variety is inadequate as the span of commentaries is entirely critics towards John Yoo's policies. It was intriguing to observe a lack of policy defenders' response. The information from the citations is all up to date, with the newest archived from the original on January 31, 2021.

The Simplified Chinese and Korean version of John Yoo's Wikipedia page is significantly shorter with only a one-sentence introduction, one sentence of his early life and education, and career up to 2009--outdated comparing to the English version of the page. The latest publication on the simplified Chinese page is "Point of Attack: Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare," published in 2014, yet the English version states that John Yoo's latest book is Defender in Chief: Donald Trump's Fight for Presidential Power, published in 2020. The citations for the simplified Chinese page have 24 items and two citations on the Korean page, while the English counterpart has 144. The English version of the page is more updated, with the last edit being August 19, 2021, at 09:10. The language servers lack syncing updates for further accuracy.

The article's Talk page is filled chiefly with modified external links with archives from university publications by InternetArchiveBot, an edited calculation of John Yoo's exact age during stages pursuing education by Stevemidgley, and a suggestion from Snooganssnoogans stating the writings of the figure are interpreted too frequently and that the page should use more reliable secondary sources.

This Wikipedia page presents the topic adversely from what one expects to learn from a political figure's page, especially the non-English pages. The simplified Chinese page is significantly biased, citing John Yoo's quote claiming he regards the Berkeley students and faculties who disagree with his political views as primitive cave-dwelling humans remaining during the Vietnam War. However, the citation for this quote from a Los Angeles Times article, "In Berkeley, Yoo feels at home as a stranger in a strange land" by Carol J. Williams, is unavailable through the provided link. The original article on Los Angeles Times and updated the external link. However, the original quote from the news article is, "It is like looking at the panoramic displays of troglodytes sitting around the campfire with their clubs. Here, it's tie-dye and marijuana. It's just like the 1960s, with the Vietnam War still to protest." [1], proving the misleadingness of the simplified Chinese page upon this topic.