User:Dburke312/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Shirley Temple

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the Shirley Temple page because her life and career interests me. The article includes comprehensive information, with different topic categories, which I believed would allow me to thoroughly evaluate the article. Overall, my main takeaway from evaluating the Shirley Temple page is that more reliable sources are needed. I also believe there may be too much detail in certain parts of the page (for example, detailing her mother's pay in the "Finances" category).

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic
 * Yes, article includes brief and clear summary of her roles.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No-- the lead includes past work and accomplishments.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Too detailed; maybe put her awards in a section following the lead.

Content


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, article had meaningful and comprehensive content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Discusses the empowerment of a woman. Beyond her success in acting, the article emphasizes her diplomatic career.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, neutral standpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article includes film reviews, which highlights viewers opinions (unsure if this is needed in the article).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * In terms of women being misrepresented on Wikipedia, this article is un-biased and informative; it details the life of a strong woman.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and Resources


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No-- reliable sources need to be added into the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No-- article needs "additional citations for verification".
 * Are the sources current?
 * Overall yes, yet some are outdated and are false links.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Yes, Wikipedia actually linked resources for editors to look into.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of the links work, yet some do not.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well written. It is concise, yet detailed.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article has a few grammatical errors, mainly punctuation errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is broken down into sections (Early years, Film career (roles, finances, superstar, 1935-1937, 1938-1940, 1941-1950: final films and retirement), Radio career, Merchandise and endorsements, Myths and rumors, television career, diplomatic career, personal life (breast cancer), Death, Awards, honors, and legacy)

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, photographs of Shirley Temple as a child, film clips, and adult life enhance the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images go along with the text near them.

Talk Page Discussion


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is little conversation going on.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated "B-Class" and "is of interest to multiple WikiProjects."
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia presents this topic in a similar way that we have discussed highlighting female pages in class. Talk page stresses being polite and neutrality when adding to the article.

Overall Impressions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's status is mediocre-- needs more "touching up" and attention to sources.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Extensive information and organized categories.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The sources need to be improved (add more reliable sources); Wikipedia acknowledges this on the top of the page.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I believe this article is well-developed, just needs a few finishing touches (detail to punctuation and research).