User:A.ferguson.3831/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Carolyn Beebe

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 chose this article because as a woman who is a musician, researching women musicians is important to me seeing that almost every well-known musician, composer, or performer is a man. Carolyn Beebe was not only a pianist who played around the world and for presidents, but also a leader, a teacher, and an innovative woman who founded a music society in the state of New York. This matters because her achievements and her career are practically unheard of today, even though she was ahead of her time in her day. I will admit that at first glance, Carolyn Beebe just seemed to me as an accomplished pianist, and seeing that I am a pianist, I was more than pleased. However, as I went more in depth into her article I saw that she was extremely successful all around. I must do my best to improve her article because we owe it to her to shine a light on her life.

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.)

- There is a clear introductory sentence.

- The lead does not give a summary of each section, the lead only gives her birth date, death date, and the fact that she was a pianist and the founder of the New York Chamber Music Society.

- The lead does not give any additional information that is not in the article.

- The lead is decently concise. In my opinion, it does not include enough detail.

- The article's content is relevant to the topic.

- I would say the content is up to date.

- It does not say where she went to music school, or if she did at all. It also does not have much detail about her early life.

- I would say women are pretty underrepresented historically. So yes, this deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

- The article keeps a neutral tone.

- There are no biased claims.

- There was not enough information on Beebe's stance on the radio and music. I would go more in-depth with that.

- It does not go into depth about her struggles with being a woman in a male-dominated field.

- The article does not try to persuade one way or the other.

- One of the article's sources is a graduate thesis, I'm not sure if that source counts as strong or not, but it appears to be. All other sources are current, or archives that have been restored. Source #9 is not accessible, however.

- The sources are thorough.

- The sources are current, other than the restored newspaper archives.

- There is one source in particular that claims she is not only successful as a musician but successful as a woman.

- I looked for a peer reviewed article and other than the graduate thesis, I could not find anything else.

- All of the links work.

- The article does include an image, and it does relate to the topic. I just wish there were more.

- Images are well-captioned.

- Images adhere to copyright regulations.

- Images are visually appealing.

- The article is pretty easy to read.

- There are a few grammatical errors, but not very many.

- The article is organized well.

-There is not any conversation.

- Start class, biography: musicians, New York (state) low-importance, Women in Music low importance, Women in Red: classical musicians

- Overall status is start class

-The article's strengths are that it has a good organization, and has some decent detail of her education.

-The article's weaknesses are that there is not enough information on her early life, her schooling, her influences, etc. There also is not much on her teaching career. The lead section is also not a strong enough summary.

- I would say the article is pretty well developed, just missing a few details.