User:Ishamultani/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Audre Lorde

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I did not want to overthink too much when deciding on an article I wanted to focus on for this exercise so I decided to assess Audre Lorde's page as I really admire her work and aim to read more about her accomplishments and published readings. I am also potentially considering focusing on an activist for the Wikipedia Assignment however I am still unsure. If I do go through with it, this will help me get acquainted with what to expect and notice.

Lead Section

 * 1) The article introductory sentence is concise and straightforward for user to understand what the rest of the article should entail. Within the introductory paragraph, it generally shares what Audre Lorde valued and addressed which suggests to the user that it will be elaborated later within the Wikipedia entry. I do not think that it is crowded as everything was encapsulated within short sentences that are accurately cited.

Content

 * 1) From my knowledge of what I have learned about Audre Lorde, looking at the Contents Section, it acknowledges key information, separated into it's appropriate headings and sub-headings. The content does not refrain from excluding topics that Lorde has mentioned in her works, which is important as it is not misconstruing what she has done throughout her life and career.

Tone and Balance

 * 1) The tone in the article is neutral, as there are no statements that come out of bias and rather is acknowledging events/and notable moments from a perspective that is agreed upon by credible sources. Some phrases which acknowledge how she was perceived in public root from objectivity as it is affirmed through others sources (in this case, being a film). I personally did not perceive the content to be seen written in bias, as it seemed to just recite and share what Lorde had written, published and vouched for which is relevant to what information should be shared in order to accurately address Lorde.

Sources and References

 * 1) Looking through the sources, the links were still active leading me to credible sources. I also noticed that most of these sources were incredible accessible and was able to view the scholarly reading in which it linked. The sources reflect on the information that is being communicated, mostly speaking of/by Lorde.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * 1) I find the text to be quite digestible when browsing through each section and it's following sub-heading. The structure of the article is organized and I don't find it overwhelming when I am trying to find particular pieces of information. It is concise and involves information that is relevant to the article.

Images and Media

 * 1) While there were only a few images incorporated into the article, it is an appropriate approach as the images of Lorde that were used were embedded in text that introduced her as well as her poetry. The images are clearly captioned, addressing names, photographer as well as the year when it was taken. The images are placed on the far right, which does not obstruct the text yet you are still able to see while browsing through.

Talk Page Discussion

 * 1) Looking through the Talk Page, I was able to unravel some conversations that were taken to clarify understandings or some problems that were occurring. Some of these situations involved clarifying Lorde's personal life while the other situation addressed an error with an external link. When thinking about the difference in how text is being communicated in Wikipedia versus classroom would be how it is shared. Information on Wikipedia is more so reciting what is credible and relevant to Lorde, while when it talked about in class there is also an opportunity to insert personal opinions that would be considered biased if shared in a Wikipedia article.

Overall Impression

 * 1) My impression from this article considering all these factors shapes a well constructed entry is that it contained the appropriate structure, writing and sourcing. I think a strength would be the organization of information and clear distinction in headings. There is an emphasis on certain sections over others, and is not overwhelming as a user that is scrolling through it for perhaps the first time. I would say the article is well articulated, inserting quotes, and credible statements from multiple sources.