User:Meganfarley65/Evaluate an Article: Difference between revisions
←Created page with 'User:Meganfarley65/Evaluate an Article' |
Evaluated the MKUltra article |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
User:Meganfarley65/Evaluate an Article |
User:Meganfarley65/Evaluate an Article |
||
\{{dashboard.wikiedu.org evaluate article/guide}} |
|||
== [[MKUltra]] == |
|||
(Provide a link to the article here.) |
|||
== I have chosen to evaluate this article because it relates to my group project topic. == |
|||
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) |
|||
Overall, the opening paragraph is very concise and detail oriented. In terms of allowing readers maximum information in the first few sentences, I would personally include the general time period in the first sentence, in the form of (in the 1950s). This would allow the reader a very clear understanding of the operation with the most minimal reading possible. In editing the sentence “MKUltra used numerous methods to manipulate its subjects' mental states and brain functions, such as the covert administration of high doses of [[Psychoactive drug|psychoactive drugs]] (especially [[LSD]]) and other chemicals, [[Electroconvulsive therapy|electroshocks]], [[hypnosis]], [[sensory deprivation]], isolation, and [[Verbal abuse|verbal]] and [[sexual abuse]], in addition to other forms of [[torture]].”, I would consider deleting the entire first phrase, and simply provide the list of experimentations used. The more facts provided towards the beginning, the more concise the article appears. You can comment on the fact that mental states were being altered after listing these methods, although it may not be necessary as it is quite obvious that these methods would affect the subjects mentally. |
|||
In terms of the content, I would personally say that the “background” section needs some reworking. It leads off with the explanation of the name of the operation, which seems trivial to a reader who has little knowledge of what the operation even was. In addition, the explanation included many acronyms and euphemisms that the ordinary reader would have to seek the definition for, such as cryptonym, digraph, and Technical Services Staff. While this information is interesting, I would start the background section with the “Origins of the Project”. Readers will be concerned as to how this project even developed, so it is important that this explanation is at the forefront. Also, according to The CIA’s Appalling Human Experiments With Mind Control (History.com), cites Allan Dulles, the director of the CIA at the time, expressing that this project was being started to combat “Soviet brain perversion techniques”, and referencing American POWs returning from Korea “shells of the men they once were”. I believe highlighting fear of Soviet mind control as the main motive is a more effective explanation, rather than beginning with the comparison of this operation to WWII Nazi experimentation. |
|||
Overall, I think the tone of this article remains very neutral. They cite real people in expressing opinions on the matter, effectively keeping the tone of the article neutral as these quotes are citations. In terms of sources, they could be a bit more up-to-date. Many of them are from the 20th century as well as the early 21st century. Accessing more current articles in addition to these sources could provide more insight to the matter, as more has come out on this topic, especially in the age of the internet. Organizationally, as I mentioned earlier, they could forgo some sections in favor of more interesting/crucial ones. For example, moving the “Origin of the cryptonym” towards the end, allowing for the explanation of the actual experiments, “Experiments on Americans” to be closer to the forefront. This information is, in my opinion, more crucial to the understanding of this atrocity than the explanation of its naming. |
|||
The images in this section were definitely relevant, and surprisingly numerous, especially for a secret operation by the CIA. They were visually pleasing, but obviously less comprehensive than an article about a non-secret operation would be. In contrast, the talk page was very lackluster. I was surprised that such a shocking article would have such little discussion. It was a featured article in 2004, which was before the true rise of the internet, so that explains a lack of discussion. Also, as a secret operation, many readers might struggle to even come upon this topic and research it. Overall, I was happy with this article, but definitely believe some positive changes could be made. |
|||
(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.) |
|||
Latest revision as of 00:47, 20 October 2022
User: Meganfarley65/Evaluate an Article
\
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
(Provide a link to the article here.)
I have chosen to evaluate this article because it relates to my group project topic.
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
Overall, the opening paragraph is very concise and detail oriented. In terms of allowing readers maximum information in the first few sentences, I would personally include the general time period in the first sentence, in the form of (in the 1950s). This would allow the reader a very clear understanding of the operation with the most minimal reading possible. In editing the sentence “MKUltra used numerous methods to manipulate its subjects' mental states and brain functions, such as the covert administration of high doses of psychoactive drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, electroshocks, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and sexual abuse, in addition to other forms of torture.”, I would consider deleting the entire first phrase, and simply provide the list of experimentations used. The more facts provided towards the beginning, the more concise the article appears. You can comment on the fact that mental states were being altered after listing these methods, although it may not be necessary as it is quite obvious that these methods would affect the subjects mentally.
In terms of the content, I would personally say that the “background” section needs some reworking. It leads off with the explanation of the name of the operation, which seems trivial to a reader who has little knowledge of what the operation even was. In addition, the explanation included many acronyms and euphemisms that the ordinary reader would have to seek the definition for, such as cryptonym, digraph, and Technical Services Staff. While this information is interesting, I would start the background section with the “Origins of the Project”. Readers will be concerned as to how this project even developed, so it is important that this explanation is at the forefront. Also, according to The CIA’s Appalling Human Experiments With Mind Control (History.com), cites Allan Dulles, the director of the CIA at the time, expressing that this project was being started to combat “Soviet brain perversion techniques”, and referencing American POWs returning from Korea “shells of the men they once were”. I believe highlighting fear of Soviet mind control as the main motive is a more effective explanation, rather than beginning with the comparison of this operation to WWII Nazi experimentation.
Overall, I think the tone of this article remains very neutral. They cite real people in expressing opinions on the matter, effectively keeping the tone of the article neutral as these quotes are citations. In terms of sources, they could be a bit more up-to-date. Many of them are from the 20th century as well as the early 21st century. Accessing more current articles in addition to these sources could provide more insight to the matter, as more has come out on this topic, especially in the age of the internet. Organizationally, as I mentioned earlier, they could forgo some sections in favor of more interesting/crucial ones. For example, moving the “Origin of the cryptonym” towards the end, allowing for the explanation of the actual experiments, “Experiments on Americans” to be closer to the forefront. This information is, in my opinion, more crucial to the understanding of this atrocity than the explanation of its naming.
The images in this section were definitely relevant, and surprisingly numerous, especially for a secret operation by the CIA. They were visually pleasing, but obviously less comprehensive than an article about a non-secret operation would be. In contrast, the talk page was very lackluster. I was surprised that such a shocking article would have such little discussion. It was a featured article in 2004, which was before the true rise of the internet, so that explains a lack of discussion. Also, as a secret operation, many readers might struggle to even come upon this topic and research it. Overall, I was happy with this article, but definitely believe some positive changes could be made.
(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.)