User:Cooldog98/Genevieve Gaignard

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


 * Deborah Bright: Deborah Bright
 * Esther Henderson: Esther Henderson
 * Genevieve Gaignard: Genevieve Gaignard
 * Barbara Bosworth: Barbara Bosworth
 * Laura Larson: Laura Larson
 * Deana Lawson: Deana Lawson
 * Barbara Blondeau: Barbara Blondeau
 * Laura McPhee: Laura McPhee
 * Winifred Hall Allen: Winifred Hall Allen
 * Gretchen Garner: Gretchen Garner
 * Aukse Miliukaite:Auksė Miliukaitė
 * Betty Hahn: Betty Hahn
 * Linda Connor: Linda Connor
 * Collier Schorr: Collier Schorr
 * Kim Stringfellow: Kim Stringfellow
 * Most of these articles (exception: Aukse Miliukaite) are entries created or edited by this course in past Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thons, 2017-19.
 * Most of these articles (exception: Aukse Miliukaite) are entries created or edited by this course in past Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thons, 2017-19.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence includes her age, where she's from, and what her art focuses on.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it touches on her early life, work, and exhibitions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not that I picked up on, nothing excessive was mentioned.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I might call this overly detailed. Many specifics about installations are mentions that maybe could have held off.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, its necessary content to understand this artists life.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes and no, she is a contemporary artist, likely still creating work. She is covered up to about 2018, then it ends. But, 2018 wasn't ages ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content provided fits within its respective categories.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, no bias is blatantly present.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not sure, many links about facts or exhibitions are to the artist directly, so aren't totally secondary, but I'm not sure wheres better to go than directly to the artist for things like that.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, sources are provided to facts about the topic and even supplementary things to help the reader better understand, for example linking to what a cabbage patch kid is so if you didn't know, you'd have more context.
 * Are the sources current? Current at the time of being published, but it does not seem as if it has been updated since around 2018.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images are included.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Authors are mentioning edit revisions.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Can't locate a rating.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Seems well thought out, its been worked on as recently as 2019, so its up to date and its functional for what its meant to do.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has good timeline record of her exhibitions.
 * How can the article be improved? Images could be nice, maybe make the opening paragraph more concise.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I'd call it fairly well developed.

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: