Talk:Project Artichoke
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Artichoke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Casseygray (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Article Evaluation
editCasseygray (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Lead section:[edit]
editThe lead section effectively introduces the article's topic with a concise introductory sentence and provides a brief description of the major sections covered. It does not include any information that is not elaborated upon in the subsequent sections. Overall, the lead is succinct and offers a quick overview of the subject matter.
The content of the article is directly relevant to the topic of Project Artichoke. While it is challenging to ascertain the completeness and up-to-dateness of information on underground CIA projects, the article seems to provide comprehensive coverage. However, it does not specifically address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or equity gaps.
The article maintains an overall neutral tone, and there are no heavily biased claims favoring a particular position. However, the viewpoints of individuals subjected to the experimentation of Project Artichoke were underrepresented, although it was mentioned that the subjects often experienced significant memory loss regarding the incidents. There is limited representation of minority viewpoints, primarily focused on the CIA's testing on minorities. The article avoids any attempts to sway the reader towards or against a specific position.
The article draws upon highly reliable secondary sources, including declassified CIA transcripts on Project Artichoke. While not all sources are up-to-date, it should be noted that this article focuses on an older experiment. There are potential avenues for updating the article with newer materials, such as recently declassified documents, case files, and interviews. The range of source material is extensive, incorporating transcripts, case studies, biographies, interviews, and more. The provided transcripts offer valuable information, and Wikipedia effectively provides a concise yet well-informed overview. Upon checking several links, it is confirmed that they function properly, directing to the appropriate sources as intended.
The article is very clear and concise, making it easy to read and understand everything. There does not seem to be any spelling or grammatical errors in the article that I have found. The article was well organized, but only broken down into the small part known at the time of writing the article.
There are no images in this article.
The 'talk' section of the Wikipedia page lacks active discussions. Instead, it mainly consists of instructions on editing and details about the CIA's Project Artichoke and Project Bluebird, emphasizing their distinct yet interconnected nature. These projects are relevant to the fields of Psychology, Human Rights, and the United States Government, which are generally classified as having moderate or low importance. Although the specific rating for this article is unavailable, it is likely placed within one of those two categories. As of now, our class has not covered any topics related to this subject.
The article remains an active work in progress, with the most recent edit made in May 2023. Its notable strengths lie in its unbiased perspective and ability to present clear information while avoiding overwhelming readers with excessive details about CIA politics. However, the article would benefit from further contributions that adhere to the same approach, as it currently lacks depth. In my opinion, the article serves as an informative resource, albeit one that requires further development. To enhance its quality, it would be valuable to incorporate links to transcripts or direct quotes from them. After personally into the CIA documents, I discovered specific combinations that were not mentioned in the article. Including this information could add depth and enrich the level of detail provided. Casseygray (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)