User:Cccm130/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Women in the Caribbean

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I saw it in the larger “Women’s History” working group, and I have heritage in the Caribbean so it caught my eye. I then chose to evaluate it because it had a C rating and was also kind of short considering it’s such a broad topic. My initial impression of the article was one of confusion - firstly because the grammar is just plain bad (incomplete sentences, sentence order not making sense, wrong use of commas, etc). Secondly the one main image in the article is of a statue, not of any real Caribbean woman, and the statue is in England, not anywhere in the Caribbean.

Evaluate the article
This article has been given a C rating in the larger “Women’s History” working group. It also has received a C rating in all other of the Working Groups it falls under. Structurally, the lead section is worded a bit confusingly and has some arbitrary quotations around some key phrases and not others. Overall, it’s informative enough and does a good job of recognizing the diversity within the group of Caribbean Women. However, at the end of the lead section the “Women in the Caribbean Project” is mentioned, but there is no information on who is running the project, what exactly the project is, where the project is being conducted, or why it is important to the broader topic of women in the Caribbean.

Also, and this is present not just in the lead section but throughout the article, the citations are incredibly inconsistent. Some of them are Wikipedia footnotes or hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles, but others are basic parenthetical citations (which aren’t allowed on Wikipedia).

Furthermore, before getting into the body, the chosen head image deserves critical evaluation. It is an image of the “Bronze Woman” statue, erected in England in 2008 to honor women of the Caribbean. This is an interesting image choice for many reasons. Firstly, it is an artistic representation of a Caribbean woman, not an image of an actual woman from the Caribbean. This article is not centered around artistic depictions, so this seems an odd choice. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, this is an article representation of a Caribbean woman from a European perspective, made by and for English people. Already, just from the one main image presented, we can see that this article may be intrinsically affected by Western/European biases.

The two main body sections are titled “Sex-role and Self-perception” and “Haitian women in the Caribbean”. The first section leads with an incomplete sentence and is overall very confusingly worded and poorly structured. The second section focuses solely on women’s role in Haiti, which is interesting because the article is supposed to be broadly about all women throughout the Caribbean. If there is specification and elaboration on one country, there should be for all. Furthermore, in the later “see also” section, there is an article linked entitled “Women in Haiti”. Therefore, this information probably already exists someplace else and doesn’t necessarily need to be in this article that’s already supposed to be broader.

One specific error I noticed within the body text was discontinuity in the time tense. For instance, when describing the French colonial history of Haiti, the present tense is used where the past tense should be. I also noticed some rudimentary spelling mistakes. Overall, the body text definitely needs a re-haul to improve not only the smaller grammar and spelling mistakes, but also in structure and content in general. Furthermore, the citations continue to be inconsistent throughout.

One good thing about this article is the that the “See Also” section is pretty comprehensive, with links to Wikipedia articles about women in almost every other Caribbean country. This would definitely be useful for someone using this more general article to find information about individual countries/regions.

There are only three academic sources cited. The article could benefit from more research, especially including statistics on women’s income, wellbeing, population demographics, etc. Perhaps some charts/graphs could be found and added to illustrate the more quantitative aspects of women’s status in the Caribbean at large. The information in this article is almost entirely qualitative, which is reductive when trying to give a comprehensive look at an entire demographic’s status in a large geographical societal group.

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?

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.


 * 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?

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.


 * 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?

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.


 * 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?

Organization and writing quality
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?
 * 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?

Images and Media

 * 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?

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.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.