User:HollyLovesHistory/Evaluate an Article

Everything in the article, Mary Church Terrell, is relevant, and nothing was particularly distracting. None of the information is out of date, and I don't think anything is missing (at least to my knowledge). I also do not notice any equity gaps; all information regarding historically marginalized populations is accounted for in a respectful way. I think that there is a lot of random information that is not synthesized in a coherent way. For example, in the "Activism" section, there are a few facts listed that could be better connected to one another.

Regarding the tone, the article appears unbiased and neutral. All viewpoints are equally considered and represented.

I checked the links for a few of the sources, and the links work. Of the sources I checked, none of them are biased. While these sources support the information in the article, not all of the article's claims have sources. For example, in the "Integration" section, there are many facts without references. The sources are a diverse selection, ranging from academic articles to internet sources.

In terms of the talk page, there is not much action. In 2006, one contributor wrote that some of the information in the article was duplicated and requested that somebody fix the error. In 2018, another contributor modified an external link. The article is rated B-class, mid-importance for various WikiProjects, such as Biography, Women's History, Women Writers, African Diaspora, and Tennessee.

Wikipedia discusses this topic differently than we do in class, because Wikipedia is unbiased. On the contrary, since we think like historians in class, we learn about different perspectives as opposed to solely objective information.