User:Abdemo0912/Evaluate an Article

Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

==== The article begins with a brief summarizing-sentence of DAWN. It proceeds to list the founding members and the members' nations. The article concludes with brief statements relating to DAWN. Thus, all the information has been packed into the background of the topic. Resultantly, this article is lacking in major sections, content, and is overly concise. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

==== Although there are no major sections in this article, the brief amount of information presented is indeed relevant to the topic. The most recent piece of information is from 1996, yet the most recent source used is from 2019. There appears to be a lack of presented information in this article. This article is about DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), which is a feminists organization founded in 1984 that is comprised of female scholars and academics. Thus, its relevancy to women rights indicates that it addresses topics to historically underrepresented groups (women). ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is written in a neutral tone, as indicated by the statements relevant facts regarding DAWN.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

==== The article is indeed supported by reliable secondary sources of info William E. Gibson (2012). The sources are limited in quantity, but thorough in nature. The most recent source is from 2019. All the links work. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

==== The article is short, limited in information, yet it is coherent with the presented content. It could be described as overly concise, but concise nonetheless. It is well organized (largely due to the lack of information present), and is without grammatical errors. ====

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

==== The articles status is complete, but lacking information. It is strong in providing concise, relevant information. Conversely, its greatest weakness is the lack of presented information on the topic, which means more content is required to improve this article. In other words, it is an underdeveloped article. ====

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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: