User:Gustudent/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Jean Bellette

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because it was an artist that I had never heard of before. I also liked that it was a women artist during the 1900s since I think they are oftentimes left out of our history books. My preliminary impression is that she liked a very impressive life and her art/her traveled the world which is impressive for a woman of this time.

Evaluate the article
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - but it could have included more about her notability.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes - but the lead did not touch on her legacy as much.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise as it is only two paragraphs.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it stayed on topic while providing helpful context to some her lived experiences.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes - especially given since she has pasted away.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I thought all the content belonged and covered a wide span of her life. I did not think there was anything missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article is about a female artist which is historically an underrepresented population in terms of topics on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * 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 although it is important to note that a lot of the information we have about her is from art reviewers.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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? Yes - mostly news articles and sources from Australian library.
 * Are the sources current? Yes - they are primarily news articles
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No - from what I can tell it is not a diverse spectrum of authors nor do they include historically marginalized authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) For this topic, I think it is difficult to find peer-reviewed articles. However, beyond the tabloids which are arguably no the best sources, there does seem to be some good sources from art galleries in Australia.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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 spelling errors - although some sentences that could be reworded for clarity and minor grammar considerations.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes - very logical.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? For the most part, although I think more information could have been added to the second + third picture.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There was a recent chat about adding more pictures.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a highly rated article and I agree with this rating!
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I think it does a good job of following the five pillars although a lot of the sources are from tabloids which is just important to remember. I think this is interesting to consider to especially given the idea that tabloids sometimes misrepresent people - although it does seem that the people writing this Wikipedia wrote in a way that a sifted through the tabloids looking for true facts.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It is a featured article on Wikipedia and involved with several projects.
 * What are the article's strengths? I think that this is a great article that is clear and does a good job summarizing the entirety of someone's biography in a concise way. It also covers a wide breadth of her life that is relevant to her art career.
 * How can the article be improved? I agree with the talk page in that the addition of more pictures would be a great addition. I am not sure how hard that would be to find though.
 * 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 well-developed due to the number of sources, well-written parts, and logical outline of this article.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.