User:Corinnestevens/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nabia Abbott

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article after I found the topic "Women in Archaeology" listed under the c-class list provided in the exercise. I then clicked the first name at the top of the list and found Nabia Abbott.

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 section provides a simple overview of Nabia Abbott's area of knowledge, where she was a professor, and her most famous piece of writing. It provides a guide to the sections of the article and does not contain anything irrelevant or overly detailed

Content: This article contains relevant information about Abbott, but lacks detail, mentioning many interesting things about her very briefly and not expanding on the information provided. It is recognized that she is a pioneer for women in archaeology but does not go into detail about any hardships she faced while paving the way in her field.

Tone and Balance: This article does a good job at maintaining a neutral tone. Because this article is pretty short and undetailed, there isn't much room for personal opinions or bias to come through. Very bare bones

Sources and References: Information is well cited in the reference section, though the most recent source is from 2013. Something more recent has most likely been published regarding Abbott since this date so more up to date sources would improve this article.

Organization and writing quality: This article is well organized, but the writing quality could be improved, The sentences are short and choppy so reading isn't particularly smooth. Some of the sentence structure is a bit backward and hard to understand.

Images and Media: There is one picture of Abbott with a relevant caption. It is completely cited.

Talk page discussion: There is no discussion on the talk page.

Overall impressions: This article is technically well done, everything is well cited, organized, and all elements (besides an active talk page) that make a successful Wikipedia article, but there is very little information or detail presented.