User:APhysicae/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: (link) Laura Eisenstein
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: It is biography of a female physicist, additional to that, this article was also written by another Wiki Scholar.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it is clear and precise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, It gives a description of the most notable contributions of the Physicist, but the structure of the introduction has no relation with the body of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, There are description of major areas of research that in the body of the article are not clearly connected.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Clear and precise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the whole article goes around the research and career of Laura Eisenstein.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Laura Eisenstein is dead. There is no information to be updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All what is written describes Laura Eisenstein involvement in her field; however, there needs to be more information about what contributions she clearly made. It is not enough to say that someone worked on a certain area or research.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, no impressions, just the facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article describes Eisenstein's career and contributions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints, just facts about her life and career
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there are no viewpoints.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. The article uses Physics Today Obituary, APS Fellow Archive and even Thomas G. Ebrey CV to corroborate information about Laura Eisenstein.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they are about her life and contribution.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are currently available online.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There is clarity of thought and ideas. The ideas are developed in a logical order.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is short, but it goes into the most important aspects of her career.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there are no images., although the Physics Today Obituary has an image of her that might be included, if we ask permission from Physics Today.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are none, but this has to be further researched because there is the possibility to attach an image to the biography.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No image available.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * This biography was created by Alexandra Courtis (user:Nanobright). There are no discussions.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article WikiProject Women, WikiProject Women Scientists, WikiProject Women's History. In all those projects, the article is rated as a C-class article, Low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Unfortunately, my article has no talk page that I can create a discussion about how it is developed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is a general article that lacks information about specific contributions. This is something that was clearly decided by the author's biography because the writing goes directly to the point of contributions and its correlated period.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Presents a timeline of Eisenstein's involvement in research.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More personal information, more information about specific work and contributions. Specifically, contributions that might have shaped the current status of biophysics.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article in underdeveloped but I fear that it is because of the lack of reliable sources. It is not easy to find information about someone who died over 30 years ago. Additionally, to identify specific contributions, if it is not already done, might require the author's analysis and that goes against Wikipedia principles. We must report what is already done, not create content.

Optional activity

 * 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 — ~ Since there are no questions I created a Subject.


 * Link to feedback:Talk:Laura Eisenstein