User:Alexjanakiraman/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: (Judy Hoffman (filmmaker))
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * We have an interest in the work that Judy Hoffman makes.

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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence summarizes the topic pretty well. The lead doesn't summarize sections but it overall represents the information that will be discussed. It is a little bit overly detailed; some of the information could probably be condensed to get the point across a little quicker. The other filmmakers listed are also not linked, but they could be because they're linked later. The years that she was active / her birthdate are not listed. There also isn't any bio information under the image as most articles have.


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article has a lot of content about the work she's been a part of, but doesn't have much of a timeline to understand how she got there or what she is doing now. It could be updated with more information about what she's currently doing, besides working at UChicago. The information about the beginnings of her career, including her education, could be clearer and larger.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
the article talks a lot about the people she's worked with, but not that much about the themes she herself works on. it also mentions activism a lot without expanding fully on it; maybe that perspective is underrepresented? The chart of films also has very repetitive language that doesn't describe the films themselves beyond the content in them. Beyond the content, there isn't a bias or language that takes any sides; it's a pretty neutral article.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
A lot of the information is from the Kartemquin site which has her biography. Is this a third-party source? Is it reliable enough? Same goes for her Uchicago bio --- who are these written by? The most recent source seems to be an interview from 2013, besides film work listed that's more recent -- pretty current, especially considering most of the information is about her older work. We would have to do a lot more research to figure out how much information there is out there, but hopefully we can find sources with more thorough information from sources where we know who information is written by. We also found some videos of her talking which could possibly be useful?

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?

Organization evaluation
The writing is kinda of roundabout and could be more concise and clear in many places, though not grammatically incorrect. There is also a lot of repetition and it's very dry. The article could be more clearly chronological, and the block of films in the middle splits up information that seems like it should go together. The awards and recognition section also contains information that seems like it could fit in with the career section and vice versa -- maybe this section could just be a list?

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?

Images and media evaluation
There is one image with a current photo and a decent caption. It's relevant, but because she is a filmmaker we think there could be stills of videos possibly.

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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page discussions are also about whether the sources are enough and reliable, since they're bios. It is in the wikiproject for Women, Filmmakers, and Chicago.

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?

Overall evaluation
The article could be improved by finding better secondary sources and organizing the sections more clearly. The article feels pretty complete, it just needs to be rearranged. The data on her films and things she's done, as well as links to these videos, is the strongest point of the 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: