User:Franziwild/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sadie L. Adams

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've always been interested in the suffragist movement–but particularly where I'm from. When I saw this article and that it was rated C-class I thought it might be a good one to evaluate for this assignment.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead is fairly well fleshed out as well as concise and descriptive. It provides Sadie L. Adam's full name as well as lists her major accomplishments in a non-clunky format.
 * However, the lead does not provide a descriptor of the major sections within the article; rather it links to other articles that detail some of her accomplishments but does not have a section within the body of the article itself.
 * It does include information that is not in the article: it references that she was a founder of the "Douglas League of Women Voters" yet simply repeats this sentence later down, offering no other explanation for the information, nor hyperlinking any information to the "Douglas League of Women Voters." Additionally, the body of the article does not reference her campaign/election to the Chicago elections board, although the lead does.
 * The lead is very concise.

Content


 * The content of the article is very relevant to the title/topic. It provides a pretty good explanation of her life and accomplishments without providing extraneous information.
 * The most recent source is from 2005 which probably helps to explain some of what is omitted (detailed below) particularly the issues with race.
 * There is some content missing, particularly when it comes to Sadie L. Adams's personal life/childhood, as well as some of the organizations she was a member of/helped to found. For example, "Amanda Smith Industrial School for Girls" which Sadie L. Adams helped to maintain and raise funds for is linked in red as well as the churches she was a member of. Additionally, the article does not provide a link or any background for the "Douglas League of Women Voters" which Sadie L. Adams helped to found. The article also excludes any information on her election to the Chicago elections board, although the lead mentions she was the first woman to be elected to this board.
 * This article does–it is focused on a Black Woman, which is a group often underrepresented on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance


 * The article appears very neutral.
 * The article does not appear to have any particularly biased statements.
 * Given that the article discusses a suffragist who is also a woman of color, it feels to me as though it would accurate to include the tensions between White and Black suffragists as well as the racism found within the Suffragist movement. Yet, the article does not mention these aspects of the movement, which feels like an informational gap to me/ a viewpoint that is being underrepresented.
 * There aren't any minority or fringe view points represented.
 * The article is not persuasive in the slightest.

Sources and References


 * The sourcing on the article appears generally to be accurate, current, and thorough. However, there are some sources that appear to not be relevant to the topic–such as a book about suffragists in Ohio. There is also a significant amount of primary sourcing, which helps to increase accuracy.
 * The sources are fairly thorough–but could definitely be increased–especially because it appears as though there are some that are just tangentially related to the topic.
 * The most recent source is from 2005, meaning that they could be undoubtedly updated. The need for more current sourcing is evident when one considers the dynamics that are omitted–such as the issues between white and black suffragists.
 * The sources could also cite a more diverse set of authors–particularly when it comes to issues of race.
 * Given how influential Sadie L. Adams was–and that she ran for public office in Chicago, there must be more news articles from the time available. Furthermore, given her involvement with numerous organizations, there must be meeting minutes/records from these groups that could contribute sourcing.
 * The links do work, but the organization of the sourcing is a bit odd: there is both a works cited and a bibliography.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is fairly well written. The sentences are clear and concise and for the most point easy to understand. There are some issues with missing punctuation and awkward phrasing that could be fixed.
 * There are some sentences that aren't necessarily grammatically incorrect but are just confusing. Furthermore, there are issues with missing punctuation particularly commas.
 * The organization is not great. The career section should and could be broken down by different events. It would need subheadings to improve readability. Also, the "death and legacy" section feels badly titled given it really only discusses her death.

Images and Media


 * There is only one image of Sadie L. Adams herself. This feels peculiar given that I'm sure there are pictures of her various groups and organizations.
 * The image is captioned "Adams, circa 1922" which is accurate and considering it is just a headshot it feels adequate.
 * The image is just put in the box on the right side which seems standard/adequate in terms of being visually appealing.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There aren't any talk page discussions. Except for a response to my evaluation that said the following:
 * "Hey Franziwild, welcome to Wikipedia. Context is always good and adds depth to understanding. If you have access to reliable, curated sources that discuss the racial situation as it related to Adams, please add the information with proper citations. The beauty of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that you can make changes to information based upon paraphrasing sources you have located that others may not have access to and don't have to ask others to make those changes. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)"
 * The article is rate C-Class. It is the interest of the WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Women's history, and WikiProject African diaspora which all rate it C-class.
 * The article mainly connects to the material we've read about the representations of women and people of color. It is an example of how representations of these folks are often less fleshed out and under prioritized.

Overall Impressions


 * The article is rate C-class. It is a full article but has major content gaps.
 * The article's strengths are its writing which is generally good as well as the fact that although it misses key factors that were at play at the time.
 * Filling in the content gaps around racial dynamics, finding better sourcing (the Chicago Defender is definitely a play to look!), and revising the structure.
 * I would say that the article is somewhat underdeveloped due to the content gaps.