User:Dagny371/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: Charles Davenport
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because Charles Davenport is one of the earliest prominent figures in the history and development of the field of eugenics that we discussed in class, and I wanted to see how informative and accurate his Wikipedia page is. If I find that one of the most prominent figures in eugenics doesn't have a very good presence on Wikipedia, then it will give me an understanding of how much information on eugenics there still is to contribute to Wikipedia to make it the most accurate and best representation of the movement.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic; however, it does not include any description of the article's major sections. It simply states that Charles Davenport was a prominent American biologist and eugenicist. It is only two short sentences, and while they provide information about his occupation and notability, there is definitely room in the Lead for more information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic, but there's only one section about his career and then a section about his "Eugenics Creed." I feel like the structure of the Career section needs to be tweaked so that it doesn't feel like it's jumping around topic-wise as much. The content appears up-to-date, but there is a sentence that references a woman he mentored that seemed out of place. When I checked the edit history, I saw that a Wikipedia user had added it because they were working on a page for that lady and wanted to create a link between the pages. I think it would be helpful to add other individuals Davenport mentored here, in order to make it less out of place. Overall, the content is decent, but I'm sure additional research would provide additional content that could be added to make the Wikipedia article more complete. For example, the Career section's last paragraph primarily describes Davenport's involvement with German eugenicists and then suddenly, the last line states that "He died of pneumonia in 1944," which seemed a bit abrupt. The Career section definitely should be divided up better, and perhaps that line about his death should be placed in its own section about his personal life, where information about his early life, marriage, and children could also be found.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. I didn't notice any biases or overrepresentation of certain viewpoints over others. The article is overall informative and doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, so its tone is balanced and appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
At the top of this Wikipedia article, there is a box with a question mark and a template message that states, "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2013)" Some of the facts listed in the article don't have a citation immediately listed, so it's a bit confusing to determine if they're all supported or not. I don't think the sources are thorough, however, as a few of the digital sources (which are the only ones with links that I could actually click and easily track down) are from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's website, which to me seems like a biased source, and Letters to the Editor, which wouldn't be completely objective. One of the sources is from 2019, so that's really current, whereas most others are from the mid-2000s. The links appear to work, but a lot of the references appear to be from paper sources that don't have digital counterparts- or at least the digital prints haven't been linked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
This article is seriously lacking in organization and grammatical correctness. Most of the paragraphs are long blocks of text (there aren't any photos to break any of the information up), and many of the sentences are awkwardly structured and in some cases, even grammatically incorrect. I didn't have the easiest time reading it the first time because I was distracted by the wordiness of some of the sentences and the lack of flow between some of the paragraphs. There are only two sections, and one of them is just a chunk of many paragraphs that pertain to Davenport's "Career." I think this article could definitely be broken down into further sections, even if they're just bolded sub-headings under the Career heading.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image, and it appears to be a portrait photograph of Charles Davenport from 1929. The caption provides the necessary information, and it's in an appropriate place - at the top right corner of the article so it is easy to associate the photograph with the person's name. The image appears to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations because when I clicked on it to find the source, it took me to a page that had "Public Domain" at the bottom and then it cited the "American Philosophical Library Society"'s online database as the source for the image. The image used is a appropriate for the topic and is places in a visually appealing location of the page; however, I do feel that additional images would help make the article more complete, balanced, and less text-heavy.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are three main conversations in the Talk page for this article. The first is a comment seeking to correct information about Davenport's post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the second is a comment regarding the inadequate source citations, and the third is a comment about the grammatical errors in the body of the article. The article is rated a C-class, Low-importance by the WikiProject History of Science. The Genetics, Biography / Science and Academia, and Smithsonian Institution Archives projects rate this article a Start-class. Wikipedia primarily discusses the article as incomplete in terms of information, citations, and grammatical correctness. We have been discussing Charles Davenport as a leading figure in the history of eugenics, so his page in an bibliography of the history of science and the United States should be pretty extensive based on all of the possible research and information about him there is out there.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is between a Start-class and a C-class. There is a good amount of information in the article; it just needs to be re-structured and proofread a bit more, and maybe a few added images would also improve its readability. I would assess the article's completeness as poorly developed. There appears to be an effort to compile information about his life and career, but it hasn't been structured in an optimal way, and there's a great deal of room for improvement, starting with basic proofreading. I honestly went in and made a few minor edits myself to fix some grammatical errors while I was reading. I've been a copy editor for a couple student publications, so it was honestly a reflex.

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: