User:ChRoseP22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Faye Harrison

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I took an anthropology class a while back and read a lot of Faye Harrison's work. I found her thoughts, evaluations and writing so fascinating and powerful. I love any chance I get to learn more about her.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

It is quite small. It lists some of her accolades and her occupation. There is no description of any major sections. There is only the lead section with nothing else following it. It is quite sparse. The lead section is concise but a little too concise. The lead section could use some extension.

Content:

There is no content portion. That needs to be created.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is very neutral. It takes no position on Faye Harrison and her work. The details are illuminated without bias or persuasion.

Sources and References:

There are three sources. Two of the links work. Two seem to be profile pages illuminating her work and one seems to be a book. I cannot find the last source anywhere to open it up and look at it. It could definitely use some more up to date references in addition to these three. It could also use more books and peer reviewed sources that illuminate Harrison more than just brief profile pages.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The writing is professional, clear and concise. I do not see any errors or mistakes in grammar or word choice. However, one could restructure some sentences or add a comma on one particular sentence. It is a very small article, so the writing is well done and concise for what is there.

Images and Media:

There are no images or media present. That needs to be added. A picture of her would be a great and crucial addition to this article.

Talk Page Discussion:

There are no discussions documented on the talk page. This article is linked to other wikiprojects that have talk pages, but even those don't indicate much discussion surrounding the Faye Harrison article.

Overall Impression:

This article is still in the starting stage. It needs a lot of work and additions. It needs a content portion, major sections, and images. It is very well written and concise, but it needs to be added onto a great deal. The accolades mentioned are strong and important. More should be said about who she is outside of her awards and written works. Her field work and personal life should be extended on. This article is underdeveloped but has a lot of room for improvement and content additions.