User:Araceli.magana/Evaluate an Article

Article Evaluation

 * Name of article: Women in engineering
 * I have chosen this article because I found the topic to be interesting and the article to be well structured.

Lead evaluation
The lead clearly explains to its readers that the article will be about women in engineering by addressing different ways that women play a role in this field. It also briefly describes the various sections that are explained further in the article by discussing the history and contribution women have made to engineering. Not only does the lead give an adequate amount of information, but it also is not overly detailed or filled with information that would be out of place in the article.

Content evaluation
The article's content focuses on the subject matter by discussing, in depth, how each section pertains to the topic of women in engineering. The content is also fairly recent as many sources were cited in 2019 and the last update to the article was on the 19th of January in 2020. Although there is a large amount of content discussing the topic, there are other discussions that could be missing that could help to strengthen the article. Once such example is, how there is not a lot of discussion about any very recent developments for women in engineering.

Tone and balance evaluation
For the most part, the article sounds neutral as the authors do not take one side. Though at times, the article can seem a bit as if there is a biased tone when discussing the rights of women. However, since the article is derived from many sources, it is mainly comprised of facts and it is then hard to sense shifts in tone since it merely informs the reader. Although one viewpoint that may be overlooked is the point of view from men on the topic of engineering.

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the facts provided in the article seem to be backed by reliable sources. There are many sources that are very recent, however, there are also sources dating back to as early as 2003. However, these references are reliable as many come from books that discuss the experiences women have in STEM.

Organization evaluation
The article is very descriptive and thorough on its topic. Each section is displayed in the table of contents and has been discussed in the lead of the article. It is not only easy to understand due to the few grammar mistakes, but the structure is also constructed neatly. Citations are also placed appropriately to indicate where the source of given facts are found.

Images and media evaluation
Throughout the article there are eight images used. Each image is captioned and explains what the image is and/or what is happening. All the images in the article correspond to the topic of women in engineering and are placed in sections that they are most appropriate for. Each image also follows the standards and regulations placed by Wikipedia, making them images that are credible for use when using them for understanding the topics that are discussed.

Talk page evaluation
In the talk page, the validity of statements and grammar is discussed. This article is also in a few projects, such as "WikiProject Women's History", "WikiProject Engineering" and "WikiProject Women", and has a C-Class rating. While in class, technology and society is discussed in a way that is informative but also thought provoking, Wikipedia is mainly fact based. It is in this way that the majority of what is written in Wikipedia, remains unbiased.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think that the article thoroughly discusses its topic, however, there are many things that could be improved upon. More topics about different viewpoints on women in engineering could be included to help strengthen the article. Also, there are some words that should be excluded as they seem biased or unreliable, such as "some say", or "still". However, the article does have many credible sources that the article is based on and is mainly in a informative tone proving it to be a good source for students researching this specific topic. I would also say that, even though the article is a work in progress and still needs improvement to become a completely reliable source, it is well-developed.