User:Hyablon/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: Clare Waterman (previous version)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate this article because of how under represented female cell biologists are. This article only had one reference.

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? I think it could be a little more concise.

Lead evaluation
This is a good start to the Lead, but definitely can be consolidated a little more.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation
The content is a good start, but definitely needs more references and information.

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
The tone is great and neutral. It is a biography so it doesn't seem to be persuading.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all of them.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No; only one source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Definitely needs work. Only one source was used. There are a few claims that need to have a citation as well.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but could use some consolidating.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, a few.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I would consolidate the Lead and change a few of the sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? One image.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
One image of Clare Waterman in an infobox. It shows the reader who Waterman is.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Nothing on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Start-Class rating; Wikiproject Women scientists.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Nothing differs; they agree this topic needs more information.

Talk page evaluation
Nothing on the talk page, but it shows what class and what Wikiproject it is a part of.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Start-class
 * What are the article's strengths? The organization and the content provided.
 * How can the article be improved? The lack of references and citations.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is in-between. It needs a lot of work when it comes to using sources and citations.

Overall evaluation
Definitely needs some improvements. A great start to the topic though.