User:HeadHuncho007/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating
Susan Hekman

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I choose this article based on random selection and because I want to learn about women's activism. As a student I've realized the importance of branching out and researching more on women's history; for the reason that, in history women's activism has been overlooked and the focus has always been on relatively men. I believe that learning more about this history will make my knowledge much more broader and will make me a better argumentative writer.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

When it comes to a overall description on the text, the article given is very short and broad. It gives little to no information of who the activist is and what she stood for. In the short biography your not really able to get much information straight off the first couple lines. As a reader its hard to puzzle together the little information thats given. Information on the topic is very basic and not good for a wikipedia article. The problem that it has, is that the basic information doesn't give the article any depth. Its super basic and its not up to date at all. Relating onto the articles tone and balance, the article has a subtle voice. It talks about the basic information but never gets explicit. The article is missing the tone and balance for the simple reason that it needs more information in order to see both sides of tone and balance. When it comes to citing and legitimacy of the article, the article does do a good job on creating legit citations. But one down side is that the last time the article was citied was in 2015. Knowing that it was 2023 we can say that the article is outdated. Also, the article isn't backed up by multiple editors, making it less credible. With the information given, it can be said that the article is grammatically correct and passes the correct basic writing rules. When it comes to images and quality, the article has no given images so i cant give a review based on nothing. The articles talk page is non existent and dead. For a wikipedia article you want to have an active talk chat about the article. That making it relevant and up to date. But this article doesn't have that at all. Overall as a whole, the article could have a lot more to give. It can be more detailed and give longer explanations. It has a good foundation to build off, so if the writer would want to go farther, they could.