User:Amanda Vogel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Women in architecture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I picked the article "Women in Architecture" because I love learning about architecture as a whole and have never read specifically about females in this space.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article starts off by acknowledging that traditionally the percentage of females in the field of architecture has been low but in more recent years they have flourished.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead very loosely acknowledges the article's main sections including the chronological development of women in architecture.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise as it gives general information about the timeline but doesn't do much more than that.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the topic begins with "early examples" of women in the field, then moves into "modern pioneers". Then the article moves into academic qualifications that women recieved and the influence of Europe in helping progress women's role in architecture.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The source could be more up to date as majority of the sources were from around 2012. However, a lot of the sources are referring to the historical aspect of the topic. The section about "modern pioneers" could use more recent sources with updated information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content in "modern pioneers" could be more up to date. I feel like I have heard about many refined female architects that were not included.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article aims to increase attention surrounding women in architecture which has primarily been dominated by men.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is primarily fact based.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints are overrepresented. However, the article lacks in acknowledging recent female architects.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, from the knowledge I have about architects it seems to be accurate.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article tries to persuade readers to think women were underrepresented in the field of architecture, but beginning around the 1900's women have had a greater role.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all of the articles have reliable sources to back them up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? No, majority of the sources are from 2012 or prior.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources have a variety of authors primarily written by women.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I found some better sources about more recent female, influential architects.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well written and easy to comprehend.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, a few minor errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken up chronologically which makes it easy to follow.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the article includes photos of architecture from different time periods and locations. It also included photos of the people the article refers to.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the are to the point and explain the relevancy of the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are helpful but not too many.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? When the article was first published the talk page had lots of conversations revolving around adding more specifics to why the number of females in the field were low and specifics about the pioneers. However, some disagreed and said they felt the article was a bunch of mini biography's and needed to focus more broadly.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rate B class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I believe that the article differs as the article attempts to share more correct information about females in architecture,

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? I believe that this article is general, but informative which is what you want from a general page about "Women in Architecture". While the historical aspect was well covered, I was surprised by the lack of information about recent and current architects.
 * What are the article's strengths? Content surrounding the history of women entering the field of architecture.
 * How can the article be improved? The content surrounding current female architects.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Overall, I think it is well developed, but as I mentioned before I sensed a gap in the more current information of women in architecture. The article needs to incorporate more current sources.