User:IJeanBaptiste/Evaluate an Article

Evaluating an Article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Patricia Bath
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to edit this article because I plan to go to medical school and be a doctor myself, so it is really inspiring for me to see black female doctors who were innovators and changed their field forever. I also think that for such a well known and widely used invention as the laser probe for cataract surgery, I feel as though Dr. Bath's inspirations and motivations behind being the first in many of her professional settings is worth researching.

Lead

 * Guiding questions:
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence does clearly describe the topic of the article, as it states Dr. Bath's career. However, I think it should include Dr.Bath's most well-known invention, the laser probe, as it led her to being such a well-known ophthalmologist. This article's lead does actively reflect all the information in the article, but does brush over the humanitarian work done by Dr.Bath as well as her many awards and accolades. The lead contains information containing Dr.Bath's family life which has not been mentioned in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
This article's content is pretty up to date, as it includes information regarding Dr.Bath's death which was in 2019. However, much of her later work in her career, from after retirement onwards is missing from the article. All of the content is relevant to Dr.Bath and her work. However, much of her volunteer work and accolades that came after career is missing or not mentioned in this article. This article also contains no information on Dr.Bath's personal life, such as the fact that she had a daughter in 1972, which is completely missing in the article. The article also focuses greatly on Dr. Bath's several different positions of leadership, but does not thoroughly explain what she did for these organizations and what her responsibilities were in these different roles. Also, much information on Bath's personal experiences throughout her career in a male-dominated field is missing from this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is neutral, as it only states the facts of Dr.Bath's career. The article is purely informational, but does not show the importance of these roles that Dr. Bath filled. By skipping over the prejudice faced by Dr. Bath, this article gives readers the impression that Dr. Bath had achieved and contributed all she had to the ophthalmic field easily, and she was not subject to prejudice and discrimination throughout this time.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the information is backed up by sources, however, the list of awards is missing all of the sources. Many of the sources provide a brief biography, and simply go over the same information, as mentioned in the Talk section by another student editor. Although it is difficult to find new details among the different sources, the sources listed do reflect the amount of literature on Dr. Bath, as it includes novels, in which she was featured, interviews, several medical journals, and Dr. Bath's own published studies. Many of the sources are current and were published in the 21st century. Because most of Dr. Bath's work was published in the 1970s and 1980s, and her patents were also given in the late 1980s, these are the only sources that are older. All the website links work for the sources listed and all the dois for the published works are accurate.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
This article is very clear and concise, as it follows a general timeline throughout Dr. Bath's career. The article did not have any grammatical or spelling mistakes, but did include a couple of incomplete sentences and information that I had fixed previously. This article is organized into sections reflecting Dr.Bath's career. However, I do think a section revolving around her humanitarian work in ophthalmology is necessary, as many of this information is not put into the article but is also distinct from her professional achievements in her career.

and Media

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

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in the article, and it has no caption.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated a C-class and of Low-Importance. It is part of several different WikiProjects, such as Women's History, Women Science and Academia and Science. It has two previous student editors who have edited in the past two years. These students outlined their plans for the articles, what they planned to research, and what they didn't have time to research and look further into. Furthermore, many editors have listed information that they didn't have sufficient evidence for. Many of the editors follow the steps we were instructed to, and outline their actions and what they have contributed to the article after editing.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is very well-organized and contains many details found in all biography sources. This article gives good background information on Dr. Bath, and helps readers understand her career, but not contain as much information regarding Dr. Bath's whole life and contribution to her field of medicine. I would say this article is developed, but can be edited further for better accuracy and more understanding on Dr. Bath's values and passions.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Patricia Bath