User:Cassierodrique/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Michelle Obama

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 chose this article to evaluate because I am very interested in politics, especially women in politics. Michelle Obama was one of the most influential first ladies in my opinion. It is important to acknowledge her accomplishments because she has truly changed this country for the better and is a role model for so many. My first impression of the article was that it is very thoroughly researched and detailed. The references portion is very long. Also, the picture of Obama that they used is very outdated. It is from eight years ago, so I feel like they should update that.

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: The article passes the test of each question in the lead section. The first sentence describes the topic. The intro touches on the sections in the article. All of the info in the intro is included in the article. It is concise.

Content: All of the content in the article is very detailed. Most of it is up to date, but some of the pictures could be updated. Also, the article does address an equity gap. It touches on how Obama was the first African American first lady. Her work for women is also highlighted.

Tone and Balance: It really seems that the entire article on Obama is written very journalist-like. Only the facts are reported and it is very straight-forward. I could not find any particular bias or misrepresentation.

Sources and References: There is an ample amount of sources used to back up the research in this article. I checked a few of the sources linked at the bottom and they all worked. They are also pretty recent sources which is good. Many are peer-reviewed, but many are also open to the public. There is a diverse set of authors that the article pulls from.

Organization and Writing Quality: The writing is actually very accessible and easy to follow. The organization is also really clear and it makes sense. The article flows nicely from early life to education to family life and religion to political careers and accomplishments. I could not find any grammatical errors.

Images and Media: There are a lot of well-captured images throughout this article. They are appropriately placed and spread out well. The only suggestion I have is to update the main picture of Obama since the current one is from 2013. The captions are all concise but informative.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page is archived for this article so I am having trouble accessing the discussion. However I did find that this article is being used by a lot of Wikigroups for projects about women in politics.

Overall Impressions: The article's status is very developed and detailed. The strengths are that it is really clearly written and provides relevant information. I would improve the article by updating Obama's picture. It seems complete for now, but as Obama does more work, the article will need to be expanded.