User:Antarcticabottlecap/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Phillips_%28geologist%29

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it was one of the many articles provided in my course that features women of geology. It is important because it adds to the collective knowledge that people can fall onto for casual reading. If articles such as this one, have information added to them, then more women of geology can receive the recognition that they deserve.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is very concise and composed with sentences that encapsulates the information of the article with efficiency. There is no overview paragraph since there is not much information about Anne Philips, but the article could benefit from an overview paragraph that is slightly longer than the introduction but shorter than the divided up sections. The lead is overall very concise and well thought out.

The content is relevant to the life of Anne Phillips, and the information is as up to date as possible. This content does deal with the underrepresented group of women in Geology. She was also a Feminist, but that point is a bit underrepresented in the entire article as a whole.

The tone of the article is neutral, there are no claims that are heavily biased in any particular direction. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader into believing a certain position.

A number of the references used are from peer-reviewed sources. The article takes from a wide range of available sources and not just one site. The article accurately reflects the limited amount of information we have on the topic. The sources presented are current and diverse, with some even being published within the last few years, and others being first hand accounts of the information. The links still work. It is hard to find more relevant sources since she is underrepresented, and lived hundreds of years ago. First hand accounts have already been exhausted, so finding more sources is reliant on modern day publishers, who recirculate first hand account information already included in the article.

The writing is clear and professional. The article is a clear read from start to finish, and the article has no obvious spelling errors. While the sections do reflect the major topic separations, there is a very small section at the bottom with very little information that could have been included into her biography at the beginning.

The included images do enhance the experience, and they also reflect the sections. They  include a photo of Anne Phillips, her brother John, a drawing of their uncle William Smith, Anne’s grave, as well as landscape photos of the kinds of terrain they encountered at Malvern hills. The Malvern hills photos, and their uncle’s image are captioned correctly, however only one of the Malvern hills captions has the link to its related article. Additionally, the photo of John Phillips is not captioned at all, which can prove to be confusing as he looks similar to William who is formatted one photo above. The picture of John has the information of where the image came from, which is the History of the Geological Society of London. Anne’s photo came from a magazine which is cited in the reference section. The photo of William Smith is public domain, and the two photos of Malvern hills are the editors' own photos, as is the photo of Anne’s gravesite. All photos are laid out on the right hand edge of the article, which makes the most sense given the amount of images and text information, and is visually appealing.

The kinds of conversations going on behind the scenes on how to represent the article were a bit interesting, the article was originally two different articles that were merged together into one. There was a merger proposal in August 2018, and it was successful. Other than that, this article has been a Wiki Education Foundation supported course assignment four times, for intervals of four months at a time, which span from 2018-2021. The talk page is pretty blank other than that. The article has been rated relevant to three Wikiprojects. Wikiproject Biography, who organize Wikipedia's information about people, give it a c-class on quality, and a low importance by its science and academia work group. Wikiproject Geology, and Wikiproject Women scientists both give the article C-class and low importance on both their project’s scale. This page does not differ much from the way we’ve discussed articles of this kind of nature in class, it’s under-represented and neglected compared to other articles, yet contains enough information to be appreciated for what it is.

The article's overall status is in the grand scheme of things a C-class, it is clear it has reliable sources and it is well written, however the problems it is faced with, provide many bumps ahead of it. The article has strength in the amount of information they have compared to other women of geology articles, evidenced by the citations throughout. The article however, is defined by requiring improvement, it has bits of cleanup required in the photos and elsewhere, such as the small education section. The section's completeness could satisfy most casual readers, but might leave some wanting. Overall it’s developed to the point where it can blend in to what is expected of a wikipedia article.