User:Anemo my beloved/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
National Woman Suffrage Association

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 it was both relevant to class topics as well as an important organization to the woman's suffrage movement in the United States. I think this article has a good outline to it, mainly in how it structured the discussion of key aspects like, how the NWSA was created, how it differed from other organizations, etc. But one particular section -- the Background -- utilizes a LOT of quotes, and they aren't exactly short.

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.)

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, but it could word it a bit differently, as the name of the organization does strongly imply what the organization was formed for.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

It does describe some of the main sections -- primarily the reunification with AWSA to for NAWSA as well as challenging voting rights, but doesn't really cover "The New Departure" section, "History of Women Suffrage", "Centennial Independence Day" or "International Council of Women Suffrage" sections in the lead.


 * 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?

Concise, but could add some basic information regarding the sections listed above.

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?

It is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

It is up-to-date, as it covers all the way up until the NWSA became part of the NAWSA (and what it became after women's suffrage was achieved in 1920.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There could be potentially missing content due to the NWSA organization lasting for approximately 21 years -- in a period where great strides were being made.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Given the main topic is an organization dedicated to women's suffrage, yes, it would be related to a historically underrepresented population

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?

Includes primary sources, which requires analysis of the article writer.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Doesn't seem to be overly biased, but in the Background section (with the multitude of quotes), the writer used quotes to showcase the topic rather than simply summarizing.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Nothing really stood out as attempting to persuade, but again -- the background section was very heavy in long quotes from primary sources.

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?

There is primary sources in the document.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

Most recent source is from 2014, and there has more than likely been new literature added in the decade since.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

A majority of the authors seem to be 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.)

All the sources that aren't primary sources are peer-reviewed scholarly writing.


 * 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?

For the most part, yes -- with the exception of the background and the multitude of quotes.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Due to the length of the topic, it's hard to say for sure, but appears to be mostly free of grammatical and spelling errors.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

It seems to be both broken down into major points as well as in chronological order

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes, also includes links to wikipedia pages for the women included in the "other leading members" section


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

all images are public domain


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

yes.

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?

The talk page is mostly empty, but notes getting a "fresh start" in 2007, a brief conversation about one of the photos included, as well as a list of suggestions made in 2020 to improve it.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Rated C, part of Gender Studies, Women's History, & Organizations


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

Overall, I think this article needs some changes to really elevate it but it does give a decent overview over the organization.


 * What are the article's strengths?

Good overview, good outline.


 * How can the article be improved?

More recent sources; LESS QUOTES IN THE BACKGROUND SECTION


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Medium-development -- a good structure but needs some aspects to be strengthened to be truly well-developed.