User:Hydrangeans/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating Eleanor Hadley.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I am interested in transnational Japanese-American history as well as women's history, and Hadley was an American participant in the post-WWII occupation of Japan. As an economist and trustbuster, she played a major role in shaping postwar Japan.

My preliminary impression of the article was that it is too short. There are a few different sections, but each is very superficial. The lead also barely says anything about Hadley; it only provides barebones biographical details and her post-occupation workplace, and it fails to express why Hadley is significant and warrants a Wikipedia page.

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.)

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?
 * No. The introductory sentence does concisely describe Hadley, but it does not clearly describe Hadley. There are many American academics and economists, but not all have Wikipedia pages. The lead should include some mention of Hadley's significance.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. The lead does not describe the article's major sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * The article only includes information that is present in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

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?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content appears to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Details about Hadley's work seem to be missing, but there is no content that does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and relates to a historically underrepresented population: women, particularly women in postwar occupation Japan.

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 from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No minority or fringe viewpoints are included in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not in particular, though the quote "Hadley became a 'leading chronicler of the anti-trust experiment in Japan during the Occupation'" does veer a little too close to promotional.

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?
 * No; one of the major works cited is a review of a memoir written be Hadley herself. This source is not necessarily unreliable, but it is a review of a primary source, rather than a proper secondary source
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes; I have found no other available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Mostly. The majority of sources were at least written within the last twenty years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes; two of the three named authors represented are women.
 * 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.)
 * No; there has been very little secondary literature written on Eleanor Hadley.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No; the Seattle Times link is a dead-end, and the Association for Asian Studies website seems to have been bought and taken over by some kind of health product company.

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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes; it's concise and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, not that I have noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The different sections of the article reflect the major points of significance in Hadley's life.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images.

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?
 * The only talk present is about an external link added no later than 2016.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article seems to have no particular rating. It is labeled as being of interest to Economics, Science and Academia, and Women Scientists.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't talked about Eleanor Hadley in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It feels over-brief and incomplete, but perhaps in a way that can't be helped. There really don't seem to be any more secondary sources to draw upon.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is easy to understand and comes across neutral.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The decayed links need to be replaced somehow.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems underdeveloped.