User:Isobel.Isobel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bridget Ogilvie

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because it is a C-class article, which was recommended for evaluation by the Wiki Education Training module. I also chose this article because it is relevant to the Uncommon Leaders course that I am enrolled in. This article matters because it showcases the life of an individual, Bridget Ogilvie, who belongs to a group of people (women) that have been historically underrepresented within the scientific discipline. Ogilvie was an influential biologist, who served in leadership roles throughout her career and who has contributed a significant body of research and educational expertise to the fields of parasitology and medicine. My preliminary impression of the "Bridget Ogilvie" article was that it was relatively short and had a somewhat limited number of references listed at the bottom of the page. I did appreciate the picture included in the article and "Education" section of the article, which provided a succinct overview of Ogilvie's educational achievements. Upon first reading through, I also noticed that the article is only split into a couple subsections, and it seemed as if more supplemental information could be added with the addition of new subsections.

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

The Lead section of this article was very short. I found the Lead section of this article to be relatively underwhelming, and I would say that it does not define the topic well or provide a concise overview of the topic. The Lead section does include a single introductory sentence that describes the articles topic, but it provides a very limited amount of information. Since the Lead section only includes a single introductory sentence, it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and would benefit from this addition of this description. One positive aspect of the Lead section is that is does not include any extraneous information that is not present in the article and it is concisely worded; however, the Lead section must include more information in order to provide a better overview of the topic. The only information presented in the Lead section is Ogilvie's nationality and the fact that she is a scientist. I would recommend adding a sentence or two about her research and accomplishments.

Content

All of the content present in the "Bridget Ogilvie" article was relevant to the article's topic. There was no information present in the article that was unconnected to Bridget Ogilvie or that seemed irrelevant. The content that was presented was relatively up-to-date. There were some facts and information that were collected a long time ago, but there were also articles that were as recent as 2018, as well as some articles from 2016, 2014, 2013, and 2011. Since a lot of the information in this article is history-based, having sources from a variety of dates seemed beneficial.

There is no content that felt like it did not belong, but there was content missing from the article. A section titled "Interviews" has been created, but it does not currently contain any text or content, besides a single footnote to a previous interview. The article is short and could include a larger number of sections with additional research. The main sections that are currently present detail the Education, Career, and Awards and Honors of Bridget Ogilvie; however, this article could benefit from an additional section that details the Outreach or the Leadership that Ogilvie has shown within her field. Similarly, a section on the legacy of her research might also be a beneficial addition to the article.

This article does address one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps, and it does address a topic related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. In particular, this article was written about a female researcher in a STEM discipline, who was born during a time period in which women were often highly discouraged from pursuing STEM research. Women remain underrepresented in STEM fields in modern society as well.

Tone and Balance

Overall, I would rate the tone and balance of this article as excellent. The article is written from a neutral point of view and does not express any sort of political opinion of bias. There are no claims that appear biased towards a particular position, although, to my knowledge, Ogilvie is not known for being a particularly controversial or polarizing figure. There are no "opposing viewpoints" present in the article, and I wouldn't say that the viewpoint of any particular group is over or underrepresented. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints presented, since the topic of the article doesn't really have any minority or fringe viewpoints associated with it. The article is not written with any intent to persuade.

Sources and References

Most facts presented in the article are attributed to various reliable sources. The entire Career section seems to be primarily attributed to a single source, but the source seems highly reliable, so this may not be a critical issue. If possible, I would recommend supplementing the Career section with information from additional sources. The Awards and Honors section, in particular, contains specific references at the end of each sentence, and is very well-sourced. The article's sources are thorough, and they do reflect a wide amount of the available literature about Ogilvie. It might be beneficial to add a few more of Ogilvie's original publications to the article, as evidence of her academic research accomplishments.

Sources are relatively current, with articles that are as recent as 2018. Although 2018 is a few years in the past (as of 2021), much of the information is historical, and would not have changed significantly since the date of publication. There are some sources with much earlier dates, but these are historical examples of Ogilvie's research, and they remain relevant to the article's topic.

There are only sixteen total sources, and not all sources clearly list author information, so it is difficult to assess how diverse the spectrum of authors is. Many sources are links to government or university websites, which contain accurate information, but may not represent a full spectrum of information on the topic. Some sources are from private but reputable organizations such as the Royal Society of London. Many of the sources are academic, and peer-reviewed articles are included when applicable. I would say that the sources provided are generally very reliable.

All links that I checked worked, and a few of the internet sources have been archived, so that the links will continue to work even as their parent websites remove content.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well-written. None of the sentences have obvious organizational issues, and I had no concerns about the article's overall clarity as I was reading through it. I could not find any grammar or spelling errors, and the writing had a clear flow of overall ideas. As stated above, I would definitely consider adding new sections to the article to make room for additional, relevant content; however, I do not think that the current layout of the article is confusing or unclear structurally. The sections don't reflect all major aspects of the topic, but the sections that are currently included are worthwhile, and should be kept. I simply believe that the article could be improved with the addition of a few new sections (as listed in the Content section of this review).

Images and Media

The article includes a single image in order to help enhance understanding of the topic. The image included is well-captioned, and includes both the subject of the image and the date that the photograph was taken. The article could be improved through the addition of a few more images, possibly in the Awards and Honors section of the article, which would be a good place to insert an image of the Ogilvie receiving an award or honor. The image that is present does appear to fully abide by Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The single image that is available is added to the article in a visually-appealing way, but, as previously stated, I believe that the article could be made more visually-appealing with the addition of more supplementary images.

Talk Page Discussion

When observing the Talk Page of this article, there are no active conversations taking place. The single post that is present on the article's Talk Page is a post from an automated bot named "InternetArchiveBot", and the post simply explains that four external links from the references section of the article were modified in order to improve the formatting of the links and add archive references to the links. The article is rated as a C-Class article, and it is a part of numerous WikiProjects, including WikiProject Biology/Science and Academia, WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Science, WikiProject History of Science, and WikiProject Women scientists. This topic is relevant to our class, "Uncommon Leaders", but it differs from our class in that it does not explicitly mention any of the barriers that Ogilvie might have faced as a woman doing research in a STEM discipline. This article mentions Ogilvie's academic achievements, but does not provide much detail about the lasting effects that these achievements may have had on the field of parasitology and the accessibility of STEM education.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I would rate the status of the article as good, but needing some improvement. The article is not factually inaccurate or biased, but if additional information and sources were added to the article, it would provide a more comprehensive overview of the Ogilvie's life. One of the article's strengths is that it addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, by providing a biography for a member of a historically underrepresented population (a woman working in a STEM discipline). Additional strengths of the article include the external links section, which has working links that provide additional information, as well as the "Education" section of the article, which provides a clear and concise overview of Bridget Ogilvie's educational experiences. One of the article's main weaknesses is it's very short Lead section, which does not provide a concise overview of the topic or the main points of the article. Additional weaknesses include the article's lack of images and media as well as the article's Interviews section, which has been created but does not currently contain any text/content, beyond a single footnote. The article isn't poorly developed, but it is somewhat under-developed, and it would benefit from the addition of new sections and content (as noted in the Content section of this review), as well as a slightly more expanded Lead section. The article does provide some basic facts about Ogilvie, with a variety of reputable sources.