User:FairyVanilla/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

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.)

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.)

= Evaluate an Article Questions:  Emily Temple-Wood =

Lead:
A good lead section define defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Questions about Lead:
1.      Does the lead include an introduction sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic? Yes, it started with who she is, when she was born, what she is known for, and finally what school she graduated from.

2.     Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections? Yes, they give us an overview of the sections we can expect.

3.     Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn’t) No, every little information from her is here in the article.

4.     Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed? This article is very detailed.

Content:

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Questions about Content:
1.      Is the article’s content relevant to the topic? Yes, they are relevant to Emily Temple-Wood.

2.     Is the content up to date? Yes, they are very much up to date.

3.     Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is content that has her position on her job which seems kind of irrelevant.

4.     Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia‘s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, this article deals with equity gaps. She is very known for gender bias on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance:
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Questions about Tone and Balance:
1.      Is the article neutral? Yes, it seems very neutral to me and not heavily exaggerated.

2.     Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, there is content that has her work on Wikipedia which in my case seems heavily biased too.

3.     Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? Yes, I think the Keilana effect is very underrepresented. I just wish they talked about this topic more.

4.     Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? I think they are some fringe viewpoints that were described as very neutral.

5.     Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I believe the article attempts to persuade me in favor of one position which is the causes and effects of gender bias on Wikipedia.

Sources and References:
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand when possible, this means academic and peer reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Questions about Sources and References:
1.      Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, most articles are backed up by reliable secondary sources.

2.     Are the sources thorough – i.e., do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

3.     Are the sources current? Yes, most of the sources are relevant till dis year.

4.     Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes, this article is written by different people of authors.

5.     Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, most of these have historically marginalized people the oldest source in there is 2008.

6.     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.)

7.     Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and Writing Quality
The writing should be clear and professional; the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Questions for Organization and Writing Quality
1.      Is the article well written – i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy-to-read? Yes, this article is well-written and easy to understand.

2.     Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? This article does not have any spelling errors.

3.     Is the article well-organized – i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I don’t believe this article is well organized because there are some sections that are mixed up that make the major points of the topic confusing.

Images and Media:
1.      Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it gives us a glimpse of what she looks like and her work.

2.     Are images well captioned? Yes, they give us an overview of the photo/ video.

3.     Do all images adhere to Wikipedia ‘s copyright regulations? Yes, they are adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulation.

4.     Are the images laid out in a visually-appealing way? Yes, they show us an appealing way to look into the video or photo of what she is saying or thinking.

Talk Page Discussion:
The article’s Talk Page - and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there - can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn’t think of.

Questions for Talk Page Discussion:
1.      What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The conversation is mostly on topic talking about her work on women scientists.

2.     How is the article rated? It is rated C-class.

3.     Is it a part of any wiki projects? It is part of the biography, Chicago, Wikipedia, women scientist, women writer, and women projects.

Questions for Overall Impressions:
1.      What is the article ‘s overall status? The overall status of the article is including everything which is the basics.

2.     What are the article’s strengths? Some strength this article has is the number of good sources it provides to back up their information.

3.     How can the article be improved? An improvement it needs is more information on certain paragraphs of Wikipedia.

4.     How would you assess the articles completeness – i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think this article is well-developed because of the number of sources provided.

Examples of good feedback:
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms; the most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

I believe a good improvement in this article is by looking back on her passion on the Keilana effect and give more information on this specific topic.