User:Bparcel/Article Evaluation

Article Evaluation: Ross Granville Harrison


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The last sentence states "He remained a keen walker all his life", which doesn't really fit with what was being discussed in the last few paragraphs. The article isn't organized in chronological order of Harrison's life, so it jumped from time period to time period in the last several paragraphs.


 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

There's not enough information to divide the article into separate sections such as "Family", "Achievements", "Education", etc, which makes it difficult to organize the article. The information doesn't seem to be out of date because his life was so long ago that not many updates could have occurred since his death.


 * What else could be improved?

The article has a lot of short, simple sentences that are all formatted the same way. "He did ____. He was _____. In ____, he _____." It makes the article very boring, repetitive, and uninteresting. In addition, because the article doesn't have enough information to be broken into categories, the article jumps from topic to topic in a confusing manner. It would benefit the article to be organized in chronological order according to his life and divided into categories such as those listed in the above question.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article doesn't seem to be very biased because most of the information is simple facts about Harrison's life an achievements. Some statements seem somewhat biased towards the importance of Harrison's work, but nothing claiming that his work is better or more important than other work.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

As stated previously, most of the article is about Harrison's life and there's nothing very controversial about it.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Most of the links work, but there is one that does not contain a link back to the original source. One link is listed as a citation for the fact that Harrison gave a Croonian Lecture, but the page linked only shows the lecturer for 2019 on the page. There is no link directly on the Croonian page that references Harrison. It would require much more digging to find any evidence that Harrison was a Croonian scholar.


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Most of the information seems unbiased because it links back to facts about Harrison's life. The information comes from mostly scholarly articles or the website of The Royal society, of which Harrison was a member.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are no conversations about this article.


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

The article is a Start-Class article, part of the WikiProject Biography and supported by the science and academia work group.


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

Well, we haven't discussed the topic in class, so I can't make this comparison.