User:Cdaless1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (Arabella Mansfield)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Arabella Mansfield's page is relatively short and therefore may probably have several improvements to be made; also, she is a very interesting figure

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Arabella Mansfield (May 23, 1846 – August 1, 1911), born Belle Aurelia Babb, became the first female lawyer in the United States in 1869, admitted to the Iowa bar; she made her career as a college educator and administrator. Despite an Iowa state law restricting the bar exam to males, Mansfield had taken it and earned high scores. Shortly after her court challenge, Iowa amended its licensing statute and became the first state to accept women and minorities into its bar.

During her career, Mansfield worked primarily as an educator and activist, teaching at Iowa Wesleyan College and DePauw University. At the latter, she also became a university administrator, serving successively as dean in the 1890s of two different schools.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but the grammar could be made more clear
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Includes her career and legacy, but not her early life/much about education
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is a good intro into the content of the article. It could be improved with some small grammatical changes.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it follows her early life, education, career, and legacy
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Mansfield's husband suffered a nervous breakdown and ultimately had to be placed in an asylum. This is not included in the Wikipedia article. Also, the article mentions that Mansfield worked with Susan B. Anthony, but does not expand on that work.

Content evaluation
Appears to contain good information and several interesting details based on a contributor's extensive research into the Flint River Company. The Talk page has some discussion of certain pieces of information and correct conclusions were reached.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there was a debate in the Talk page about who was actually the first female lawyer in the US, but a conclusion was reached
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Presents the facts in a clear and balanced way

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * One article ("Most Endangered: Union Block") is no longer found. The other sources appear reliable and contain relevant information
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are only four working source links, and likely this does not reflect all the available literature. Based on basic searches, there is certainly an expansion of content that could be performed on this article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * One is no longer available. The others are from the early 2010s, and it is possible there are more current and relevant sources available.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the organization is clear and makes sense
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No glaring errors, but there are several places grammar could be edited to make the article more clear and easy to read.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. With further research, a section could perhaps be added on her role in the suffrage movement.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is well organized and clear.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, an image of Mansfield and of the building in which she took her oath as a lawyer.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, captions are clear and relevant
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
Only two images are included. Both are relevant.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Contributors clarify a couple of points, like how Mansfield did not actually graduate from law school (this was not required to pass the bar). One also briefly explains research they conducted for a newsletter they publish, and how it applies to this page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Iowa, and WikiProject Women's History. The article was created or improved in 2019 during the Focus on Suffrage Initiative.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not yet discussed this in class.

Talk page evaluation
For the most part, contributors are polite and transparent in explaining their edits and their comments are clarifying.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, the article is clear, concise, and informative. It does not contain great detail but covers all the major points.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is easy to read and understand and covers all the major pieces of information that must be included. The organization is logical and easy to follow.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More detail could be added and grammar/sentence structure could be revised to improve the way the article reads.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is underdeveloped, but a good foundation upon which more information and levels can be added. The information included is solid, it could just use some further depth.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is a strong foundation for further development. There are no glaring faults and it provides good information. With further development of detail and improvement of style, the article can be very strong.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: