User:Gilbertltaylor/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: Laura Knight
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it appears to be a great article topically related to the type of article we will be choosing for our course. The article is well formed and written so I thought it would be a good idea to familiarize myself with how it was constructed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise, just 2 short paragraphs.

Lead evaluation
The lead is really great in my opinion, it describes the content of the article well and concisely. It gives a good view of what I should expect as the reader from the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, based on editing history.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I can tell.

Content evaluation
The content is comprehensive and does not favor certain sections over another - there is continuity and consistency.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is written in a very objective, neutral tone. The information presents no hint of bias and consistently addresses each topic similarly.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Definitely.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of them do, but some link to pages no longer active.

Sources and references evaluation
Super thorough references and citations throughout.

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?
 * Not that I found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, very well organized.

Organization evaluation
Overall the organization and structure of the article is great - all major points are hit and it is easy to follow and read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It appears so, but, there is some discussion within the talk page that some copyright is unclear, particularly about the status of Self Portrait with Nude.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
There were the requisite images of the artist and the artist's work that I would expect from such an article and they definitely helped form a clearer picture of the artist and their work than words alone would have.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Lots of small edits for clarification and clearer writing. Discussion also touches on various citations and the veracity of certain claims.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This is rated as a good article within the Women artists project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I'm not exactly sure what this question is getting at, but the discussion in the talk page is very objective (as I would expect based on the values of Wikipedia).

Talk page evaluation
The talk page presented a good range of the discussions that go on behind the scenes. It was interesting to see the extent to which editors reviewed each other's work and communicated about potential issues. It definitely showed me the types of discussions to expect, and hopefully find, concerning these sorts of articles.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is finished and rated as a good article within the project.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is very comprehensive and has all the information I would expect if I were to be beginning research on the artist.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article would be difficult to improve as it is so complete, but since the lead mentions that "She was also greatly interested in, and inspired by, marginalised communities and individuals, including Gypsies and circus performers," I was hoping there might be a more expanded discussion of this. The article mentions how they related to Knight's work, but I'm curious if there is more information about her contact with and interest in these peoples.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is very well developed.

Overall evaluation
This article is great - having spent a decent amount of time reading Wikipedia myself (as we all have!), it reflects the exact content and form that I hope to find when I click on article.

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: