User:Capricon13/Evaluate an Article

Lead section[edit]
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? The lead sentence is very short, but it does describe her very breify. This sentnace could be expaned on.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. It does not mention the articles major section.
 * 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? It is almost too concise.

Content[edit]
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? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, There is content that is missing. It should include more about her life leading up to becoming known and expand more on what she did.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would say the viewpoints are underrepresented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References[edit]
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? Most are except a qoute.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * 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.) I did find some sources on google scholar that expand more on her life and books.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They do.

Organization and writing quality[edit]
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? Yes it is clear to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think it could be organized better. Add more sections.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image and its Rosa. I Think it would help to add photos of her books or the newspapers.
 * Are images well-captioned?Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Talk page discussion[edit]
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? Looks like there are translations.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Article was rated low importance, but it is apart of 5 Wiki Projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We did not discuse the topic in class.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * What is the article's overall status? The article was rated low importance.
 * What are the article's strengths? Short and to the point.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved if more information is added about her early years and her impact.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped. It could be expanded on.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Rosa Guerra

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 have chosen this article, because I am interested in expanding my knowledge and the articles knowledge on Rosa Guerra. The Article is short and needs to be expanded.

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[edit]
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? The lead sentence is very short, but it does describe her very breify. This sentnace could be expaned on.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. It does not mention the articles major section.
 * 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? It is almost too concise.

Content[edit]
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? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, There is content that is missing. It should include more about her life leading up to becoming known and expand more on what she did.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would say the viewpoints are underrepresented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References[edit]
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? Most are except a qoute.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * 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.) I did find some sources on google scholar that expand more on her life and books.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They do.

Organization and writing quality[edit]
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? Yes it is clear to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think it could be organized better. Add more sections.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image and its Rosa. I Think it would help to add photos of her books or the newspapers.
 * Are images well-captioned?Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Talk page discussion[edit]
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? Looks like there are translations.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Article was rated low importance, but it is apart of 5 Wiki Projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We did not discuse the topic in class.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * What is the article's overall status? The article was rated low importance.
 * What are the article's strengths? Short and to the point.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved if more information is added about her early years and her impact.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped. It could be expanded on.


 * be expanded on.