User:Chloe McKeown/Evaluate an Article

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

Warren Binford

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 because I am interested in feminism and women involved in human rights. Binford's involvement with children's rights stood out to me and I wanted to learn more about her contributions to social justice. My first impression of the article is that it is well researched but lacks detail. The article is on the shorter side, length-wise, however, it covers important areas of Binford's life work.

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 lead paragraph of this Wiki page is strong. It clearly outlines the individual in which the article is about, and the main aspects of the article. The paragraph is concise when describing Warren Binford's work as an attorney, professor, writer, and international children's rights scholar. Readers of all level of interest would be content with the brief intro and the facts provide.

Content:


 * The content of the page is relatively strong. It includes a variety of areas involving Binford including her college education, legal career, research, news coverage and awards. However, I would argue that the page does not go into enough detail about her early life. The timeline of Binford's life, in the readers eyes, starts in her last years of education at Boston University and Harvard Law. It begs the question - what was Binford's early life like? How did she find her passion for children's rights? I believe there should be more information, if possible, on Binford before her career was ever successful. This would provide more context for the reader about Binford's life.
 * This article is up-to-date and includes very relevant information. The writer did a great job of being concise, while providing useful information in each subheading.
 * The article remains unbiased and provides equal amounts of information that are impartial.

Tone and Balance:


 * This article is written with an impartial tone. There is no evidence of any persuasive tone and does not include information that would show bias towards any perspective.
 * The author did a good job of conveying information without spinning the content in any biased form. The vocabulary is very bureaucratic and does not use any kind of tone that would suggest overrepresentation or underrepresentation

Sources and References:


 * The sources used in this article are mainly reliable. However, I did notice that there was heavy use of news articles reporting on the border situation in Texas. The articles themselves may show heavy bias and may not be the best secondary sources to rely on for information.
 * ** I searched for peer-reviewed articles that focus on Binford's work. They are limited works that would hardly be deemed useful to this article. Therefore, I would argue that if the author cannot find any peer-reviewed articles, the news articles used are tolerable as resources as the information used is displayed unbiasedly.
 * Some of the references are authored by the subject of the article which may perpetuate some level of bias. However, the article mentions the work and accurately cites the work of the subject, therefore, I do not see this as a major issue in the article.
 * I would urge the author to seek out secondary sources that are not tied to large news outlets who have a past with publishing biased articles. This will ensure that all the references are not positions in any way that may not be impartial.
 * The links are active and accessible.

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * This article is organized well and has a high level of writing quality. It is concise and follows a timeline that is easy to follow.
 * The topics the author covers are relevant and all the information provided in each section is relevant to the subheading.

Images and Media:


 * There are no images or other media included in this article.
 * The article, visually, is not interesting and lacks visual of Binford herself.
 * I suggest that the author include images and other media to support the article and ensure the page is interesting for readers to look at while reading.
 * I also urge the author to caption photos to ensure that readers understand what the picture is displaying and why it is significant to the article.

Talk Page Discussion:


 * The article is currently rated as a C-Class article. It is apart of the WikiProject Oregon.
 * The Talk page introduces fine-tuned editing within the subheadings.
 * Some individuals have suggest not to quote as often.
 * Other editors are not sure the sources seem adequate enough to build a profile.
 * This is something I am in somewhat of agreement with - the references are not as strong as they could be.

Overall Impressions:


 * My overall impression of this article is that it is off to a great start, however, I feel like more can be done to enhance the quality and credibility of the article.
 * I recommend finding stronger secondary sources to cite in the article.
 * I recommend using pictures and other media to enhance the article visually and stimulate readers.
 * I also recommend including more information about the subjects early life if possible - expand the timeline and subheadings to build a deeper look into the Binford's life and work.

~