User:Oliviahowes/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: Ethiopian movement
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose this article because I read through it and it immediately interested me.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No. It seems a bit all over the place and some of the information seems irrelevant but it also does not include enough information.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No. The article immediately goes into reasoning for this movement and it just does not flow well and is a bit confusing.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes. It seems as though instead of doing a description of the article, they did it as more of an intro and include information that they do not talk about in the rest of the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise but not in the right way.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Not all of it, no. This article mentions a lot of names that are irrelevant where they are placed and just makes it rather confusing to read through. It included some information that is relevant, but it needs to be put in a more coherent order and described more in depth.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Yes. There are not many dates in the article that are important such as when certain churches emerged. There is also not enough information about how and why people started seceding from churches and wanting change. Also under the Ethiopianism section, this article does not describe this term very well.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Yes and yes. The Ethiopian tradition actually began in the United States because of slaves passing on narratives and songs and etc.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No. In this article there are not really any viewpoints to be represented. The information that the author of this Wiki article provided is just not in depth enough. Adding of different viewpoints is most likely necessary when editing this article.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- The reference does not fit into the article at all. It is about Rastafari and that is only mentioned once and it is in the notes. The first source is an article from the New York Times written in 1970 and it is relevant to the topic of this article but it does not appear that the article uses any information from this source. The second source, Frontiers of African Christianity, is also very relevant. And lastly, the third source is used to back up information written in this article, but the information is too specific to just one thing, that it does not seem necessary.
Are the sources current?
- Yes.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes and yes.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- There are no links provided in the bibliography except the ISBN numbers which lead you no where and one link to a website listed in external links.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- No not at all. It is all over the place.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I picked up on no. Just confusing sentence structure that needs to be edited.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Nope. It seems as though the author just typed out all the information they could remember instead of organizing it to where it makes more sense to the reader.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There is only one comment from someone who seems to have edited the title to something more fitting and also changed removed the reference to European theologians using the term "Ethiopian Movement" because it is used elsewhere as well.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- This article is a part of WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject African diaspora, and WikiProject Sociology. This article was rated Stud-Class.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- I am unsure.

What is the article's overall status?
- This article seemed rather unorganized and messy.
What are the article's strengths?
- The author stayed very neutral and unbiased when describing all of the information in this article.
How can the article be improved?
- It can be improved by having a more clear focus and clearer paragraphs of different information.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I would say it is underdeveloped.

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 — ~~~~