User:Ggrueninger01/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: (link)
 * Margaret Murray (Margaret Murray)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I find the era that Margaret Murray has lived in, and I am highly fascinated in female scientists who lived at a time where they were going against the social expectations of the time.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does! It spells out all of her jobs and accomplishments that she did during her life.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes! it goes through
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it includes all of the different sections that they write about
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise! short, factual sentences.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes!
 * It is about her entire life and her relevancy to Egyptology and the many roles that she played in archaeology and first wave feminism at the turn of the century.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * seemingly so, It has sources from the latest 2016. This seems like pretty recent sources about a turn of the century female scientist.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not in this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes! it is full of concise, factual, non opinionated sentences.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it seems pretty balanced, as far as I am concerned. There is some more information regarding the criticisms of her work over her arguments, but both sections are still prominent.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As far I am concerned, no.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope. totally factual and non biased towards any argument.

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?
 * Yes! they are thoroughly referenced in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the latest link is from 2017.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes!
 * Yes!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * very well organized! everything is laid out nicely and

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes! her portrait and images pertaining to her life and beliefs.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yep!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * indeed!

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * It is asking for excess information on topics regarded within the article as well as some dates for a few of the artifacts featured within the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of WikiProjects, it is rated as a level 5!
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It is more about missing information and less about suggestions for language and grammar, suggesting that it has been highly reviewed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article looks pretty good! it is seemingly a very well regarded article in terms of Wikipedia guidelines.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * very thorough, in depth analysis of every topic on the site.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * could use a few more dates on some of the artifacts, and it could be labeled better. technically she is a scientist with her study of Egypt, but the Wiccan part of her and the authorship seemingly came out of nowhere.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is very well developed. it has many sources and a plethora of information in it!

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: