User:Eagles107/Evaluate an Article

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does 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?
 * Yes, the lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there is content that is missing and does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It also addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes, the article is from a neutral point of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, there are a few claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, there are a few viewpoints that are underrepresented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes, minority viewpoints are accurately described as such.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * 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, there are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage and random websites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links do work.

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

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article does include images that enhance understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, all of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, the images are not laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are very few conversations that take place behind the scenes. The only conversation that occurred was about finding academic sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale but has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Yes, this article is a part of WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is very similar from the way we have talked about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale but has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are that it is from a neutral point of view, all of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and the content is up-to-date.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by laying out the images in a visually appealing way, fixing the grammatical errors, and using more peer-reviewed articles.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is well developed but could use some changes to make it better.

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the gender disparity in computing article. (Talk:Gender disparity in computing)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am very familiar with this topic and it is something that I am interested in. This topic matters because women should not be overlooked by employers in the technology field. Instead, they should be given the same opportunities and benefits as men. My preliminary impression of this article was that women are treated poorly in this field and are not given the respect they deserve.

Evaluate the article
This article has a lead that is concise and not overly detailed. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections and does not include information that is not present. The article's content is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. It deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations. The article is from a neutral point of view, and there are a few claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. All of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, and the links are not broken. The article is well-written and well-organized but has grammatical errors. The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic and are well-captioned. However, the images are not laid out in a visually appealing way. There are very few conversations that take place behind the scenes. The only conversation that occurred was about finding academic sources. The article's strengths are that it is from a neutral point of view, all of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and the content is up-to-date. On the other hand, the article can be improved by laying out the images in a visually appealing way, fixing the grammatical errors, and using more peer-reviewed articles.