User:Atb105/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Katharine Way

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in World War II and physics. For this specific school assignment, I was asked to look at women on Wikipedia. After looking through many different Women's wikipedia pages, I found Katharine Way the most interesting because of her work in the Manhattan Project.

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.)

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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
 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes - Katharine "Kay" Way is in the bold and are are the first three words of the article.

Yes - All sections are mentioned in the introductory lead. The only small change would be to mention something about her early life, but in a biography I feel like its is implied early life will be discussed.

No - The lead has very basic information that is discussed

Yes - the lead is very concise. It includes only a few sentences and is very to the point

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.

Yes - It disucsses Way's work in school and education, as well as her work in the Manhattan project which is her biggest accomplishment
 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Somewhat - Some of the information is up to date - I have been looking through the internet and am finding articles with useful information that can't be found in the article.

Yes - Something that I find may not belong is the part where it says Wheeler recruited her to be on the Manhattan Project. From the research I've done, Katharine Way called her graduate advisor (Wheeler) and talked about working on the Manhattan Project

Yes - this article addresses a Women physicisists role in the Manhattan Project

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.

Yes - the tone is neutral and there are no normative statements as far as I can tell
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

No

No

No

No

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.

Yes - essentially every sentence has one or two citations
 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes they do - However, I believe there may be a few more article sthat can be used - I found one online from the Atomic Heritage Foundation which talkes about Katharine Way's accomplishments. In addition, I found an article by UCLA that goes slightly more in depth into her achievements and advancements in physics - http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/Phase2/Way,_Katharine@862427327.html

Yes - they seem to be pretty current - in the past years, there hasnt been as much coverage on Way because she died about 30 years ago

Yes - articles are written by a diverse spectrum of authors - two of the 5 sources, however, are written by the same authors (Ruth Howes and Caroline Herzenberg), but the other three are written by different authors. As far as diversity goes, the authors are very diverse. 6 of the 7 total authors are women, and there is alos an Indian America. I believe the sources do a good job of including historically marginalized individuals

I believe there are additional source avaliable that can be found, though they are not necessarily better than the current ones, they just can offer more information:

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/Phase2/Way,_Katharine@862427327.html

Way, K., & Wigner, E. P. (1948). The Rate of Decay of Fission Products. Physical Review,73(11), 1318-1330. doi:10.1103/physrev.73.1318

Teaching Katharine Way at the University of North Carolina[Video file]. (2008). Web of Stories. Retrieved from https://www.webofstories.com/playAll/john.wheeler?sId=9414. Story first recorded in December 1996

Jack, J. (2009). Science on the home front: American women scientists in World War II. Urbana (Ill.): University of Illinois Press.

Yes - the links do work

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

Yes
 * 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?

After reading it once, I couldnt find any but I will read it again and change anything if I see it

Yes

Images and Media
Yes - it includes a picture of Katharine Way so readers know what she looks like
 * 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

Yes - the caption includes her birth year, death year, Field of Study, Alma Mater, and Thesis

Yes

Not particularly, but I dont think it is necessary. If possible I would look for a disgram or graph of one of her theories (if there is one online).

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.

There are no conversations on the tak page
 * 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?

Article is rated GA class - Part of the Women scientists wikiproject, and the women's history wikiproject

This question is hard to answer because there is nothing on the talk page

Overall impressions
The articles overall status is being a good article
 * 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?

I think the articles strengths are that it hammers down on Way's key accomplishments - Her theories and work while in school her work on the Manhattan project, and her job as a professor at Duke

This article can be imporved by going a bit more in deptch on Way's theories, as well as more in deptch as to how she got into the Manhattan Project

This article is pretty well developed