User:Gallaz63/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Aunt Jemima
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.-

- I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is a C class article and I used to use Aunt Jemima's syrup when I was a kid.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead 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?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence that describes Aunt Jemima. From the lead, I can gather when the Aunt Jemima brand debuted, where the inspiration for the character came from, and what products are under the "Aunt Jemima" name. The lead is not too long and not too short. However, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and does not provide information unique to the article that other sections do not include. So overall, the lead could be a little longer and more thought out in previewing the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Almost all of the article's content is relevant to its topic. There are unique sections such as "in popular culture" and "lawsuit" and "idealization of plantation life" that cover information that is very unique and captures the history of what the name "Aunt Jemima" has been through. As far as I can tell, the content is pretty up to date and is for the most part cited adequately, with the exception of some claims throughout a couple sections. I can tell it's up-to-date because the Pop Culture section has recent mentions of Aunt Jemima usage, such as the usage of Aunt Jemima in 2014 on television. With that being said, Aunt Jemima is very popular, and I have no doubt that new information about Aunt Jemima has surfaced since 2014. The only major negative that I personally think is wrong with this article is its last section, "Pancake Capital of Texas." The tie this section makes to Aunt Jemima is a complete stretch and seems very forced. It states that one of Aunt Jemima's famous portrayers, Lillian Richard, used to live in Hawkins, Texas, the proclaimed "Pancake Capital" of the state. Then the section goes on to give a little history on Richard, and to me, that is a little far removed from Aunt Jemima. But, I suppose it depends on how close a person is to this section, so I understand why someone would want to keep it in the article if they're in any way emotionally tied to Richard or the history of everything Aunt Jemima.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. There is no claims saying the products of Aunt Jemima are better or worse than others, the article lays out straight facts all way through. With that being said, there are no claims that appear biased towards a particular position. There are no viewpoints that appear overrepresented or underrepresented, in fact I thought the article unpacked a lot of important information about the depiction of the character and name of Aunt Jemima, as that was not something I was expecting to be covered well throughout the article. This article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Almost all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, however there were a few exceptions with some claims. The sources are thorough and are of a wide variety of books, scholarly articles, and websites. There are a couple citations that do not work anymore due to a deletion of the source, and some citations are straight book citations that I can't get to on the computer. The sources are scattered throughout the 2000s and some even before the 2000s, but the majority of the sources seem to be after 2011, so I would say they are pretty up-to-date.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written and has no grammatical or spelling errors that I know of. I think the organization of the article could have been better in rearranging some sections to appear before others. For example, the "Slang" section is only a couple sentences long and is followed by the "In Popular culture" section that is multiple paragraphs long. I think that the article would look better if the sections that are short on information appeared at the end of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article has 5 images that do enhance the understanding of the topic and provide great visual references to what the article is talking about at certain points. All images are well-captioned in the sense that they provide information on what the photo is referring to. All images are either public domain or are cited and used appropriately, with the exception of the last image. It does not say in the caption where the image is taken and when it was taken. After clicking on the image, it says "David M Smith - own work." However, I am not sure how to verify that it is.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Some conversations going on include miscellaneous comments about the information in the article or things related to Aunt Jemima, Aunt Jemima's depiction as a slave, and advertisements featuring Aunt Jemima. Other than that, the Talk page has a decent amount of sections that are made and written in by one author. The article is a C-rated article and is of interest to 4 WikiProjects: Brands, Breakfast, Food and Drink, and Fictional Characters. The way that Wikipedia discusses this topic is similar to the way we've talked about it in class. It has a concise lead in section, a balanced pool of information, and pictures to supplement claims - the majority of which are cited properly.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is a C and of low to mid importance depending on what Wikiproject you are looking from. The article's overall strengths are its balanced set of information, neutrality, and sourcing. I think the article can be improved by adding some overview to the sections within the article in the lead section, providing unique information in the lead section, finding new citations that work on claims that are supplemented with broken citations, adding citations to claims that are unsupported, and the deletion of the subject at the end that -to me- seems a little far off in its relation to Aunt Jemima. I would say this article is well-developed, it seems like a lot of people have done their fair share of research and contribution to this article due to the discussions in the talk page and the great amount of citations and information.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: