User:Gg808/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mary Kittamaquund

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is relevant to the time and place that we are studying in class but we have focused mostly on male figures so far (as does most written history of this time). Additionally, a lot of written history is written through the lens of the European colonizers, so I wanted to learn more about a specific indigenous community and historical figure. My first impression is that a lot of this article isn't actually about Mary Kittamaquund herself, but about the men in her life- her father and her husband. She seems like a very interesting person who lived very unique experiences, but this article doesn't really go into much detail about her at all. A lot about her later life isn't known because of a lack of records.

Evaluate the article
Lead section


 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes the subject of the article clearly, but it does not outline the article's major sections.
 * It is very concise and doesn't include any information that isn't present in the body of the article.
 * While the information provided is accurate, there's not a lot of information in the lead- it's very short.

Content

 * Not all of the content is directly relevant to Mary Kittamaquund. Multiple sections go into extreme detail about her husband- that information should be included in an article about him but not delved into in Mary's article. It should only be mentioned when directly relevant and then his article should be linked for further information.
 * As far as I can tell, the content is up-to-date.
 * The content addresses the historical representation gap of indigenous women.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is neutral and doesn't seem to pick any specific position or viewpoint. There don't appear to be any controversial takes for contributors to take sides on.

Sources and References

 * All of the links work.
 * Not all of the sources seem to be particularly reliable sources- some appear to be outdated and/or random websites (that aren't peer-reviewed).
 * Some of these sources could be stronger.
 * Some of the sources were really cool to look at! (Survey forms from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission)

Organization and writing quality

 * There are some sentences that are worded in a confusing manner but overall, the article is written well and is easy to follow.
 * The article is free from grammatical and spelling errors.
 * The sections are ordered well, but they aren't all necessary for the article. They stray into other topics, so although they are chronological and related, some of the sections could be condensed and/or removed.

Images and Media

 * There are no images or graphics.

Talk page discussion

 * There are very few contributions to the article's Talk page- only three posts and no replies or discourse.
 * This is a C-Class article.
 * This article is a part of the Indigenous Peoples of North America, Women's History, Virginia, Maryland, and Catholicism WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * This article is well-organized and well-written. The contributors explain basic information about Mary and her legacy well.
 * The article is underdeveloped- it needs additional information and pictures or graphics to support the written information. A lot of the information also needs to be corroborated by better, more trustworthy sources.