User:DoNotWorryAboutYourLife/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Evelyn Cheesman Evelyn Cheesman - Wikipedia

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 there was no picture of Cheesman making it clear that she was an obscure scientist. Also I find her discovery and research on insects to be intriguing and I think its important to knowledge the important work that women did in the scientific field during the 20th century. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was interesting but lacked detail. I did appreciate that the article prioritizes Cheesman's scientific work /discoveries  and not her personal life like some articles on women scientists tend to be.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:

The lead section is simple and tells the reader about Cheesman's work in the scientific field in general terms. The lead does include a brief description for the article's main sections and all of the information in the lead is mentioned farther into the article. Though the lead is not overly detailed, the third sentence about how Cheesman published about her travels could have been removed as the first sentence already infers that.

Content:

All the content in the article is relevant to the topic. The content of the article is up to date as the majority of the sources are from 2000 on with one citation from 1997. What is missing from the article is the explanation of why Cheesman is known by her middle name Evelyn and not her first name Lucy. The 'family' section of the article was fun but served no purpose other than to link articles to Cheesman's famous siblings. If Cheesman's siblings had influenced her work the inclusion of the siblings would be more relevant. Cheesman was a part of the underrepresented group of women entomologists and the article openly discusses how being a woman impacted Chessman's life like how she was unable to be a veterinary surgeon as women were not accepted in the Royal Veterancy College.

Tone and Balance:

The article had a neutral tone meaning the narration was concise not bias and bland. As the article discusses one person, it focuses solely on Cheesman and her work and indirectly explores Cheesman's viewpoint on the enologist field. There is no viewpoint the article is persuading except to get the reader to become aware of Cheesman through writing a biography and explanation of her findings and discoveries throughout her career.

Sources and References:Every sentence of the article is accompanied with a source and reference. Most of the sources are from academic universities confirming that they are peer reviewed and thorough. The sources are relevant as they either mention Cheesman by name or examine the field of enology during Cheesman's lifetime. The sources are written by men and women solidifying Cheesman's importance. There are other sources online that were not included that could improve the quality of the article. The links for the sources work, making it easy to find the sources used in making this article.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is organized well with 3 main sections and sub-topics for each large topic. Though one large heading is family but this could have been included under the biography heading. There are no spelling errors in the article and the writing is easy to comprehend. The writing quality is good and does what it needs to, examine the discoveries and life of Cheesman without making personal or cheeky comments.

Images and Media:

The biggest weakness of the article is that there are no pictures. Though the article states that Cheesman did sketches of the specimens she collected, her work would be better understood if there was a picture of what she had found. There is also no picture of Cheesman herself; even a drawing of her would be better than having no picture at all.

Talk page Discussion:

The talk page on this article is not that active. The main discussion is a request that the article should include pictures, the request that Cheesman's discovery of a specific species of orchids should be added into the article and the categories that the article is categorized under: ' WikiProject Women Scientists' and 'WikiProject Biography.' The article is rated C and low in importance.

Overall Discussions:

The status of the article is good but underdeveloped. Cheeman lived 86 years, so the article should touch on all discoveries that she made not just the well-known ones. The strengths of the article is the clear and simple writing style. The writing is concise and adapts a neutral tone. The weaknesses in the article is the occasional lack of details and lack of pictures of Cheesman and what she discovered. If more sources was added, the article could be expanded to be more detailed and helpful to the reader.