User:Iwath7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Women in the National Park Service

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was chosen because it has some information, but still seemed like it required a thorough evaluation.

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 article starts off by assuming the readers already know the topic of Women in the National Park Service. The first sentence simply states that the National Park Service has grown more inclusive.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, every topic named in the article is given a short description in the first paragraph.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is generally concise, and it does give a good summary of the issues around the topic. Although, I think more information on the accomplishments of Women in the National Park Service.

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, but it seems like it could use more information on the positive aspects of the history and service of women.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the article does not include any information on Women Veterans that are employed in the National Park Service.
 * 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 Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does address topics rated to historically underrepresented populations, because the article is about Women in the National Park Service.

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 neutral? The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a general lack of information on the accomplishments of Women in the National Park Service, as most of the information is speaking on issues on the topic.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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, there are facts in which the links provided to the sources do not exist.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is literature that is left out on the topic. There are other scholarly articles that are secondary sources online which are not mentioned in this article.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They do include a diverse and reliable spectrum of authors.
 * 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.) There are better sources available online.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? About half of the links work and half do not work.

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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is not very concise, but it is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, there are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is well-organized.

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? There no conversations in the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated C-Class. It is low importance. It within the WikiProjects United States.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There are no discussions on this article, but this article does speak on women and marginalized groups.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? This is a low importance article with not many edits and contribution. It should be edited and contributed more to.
 * What are the article's strengths? It provides a lot of valuable information and does give readers some general information on the topic.
 * How can the article be improved? It gives a negative perception to the readers. It should provide more information on the accomplishments of women in the field, and more general information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped. There is some well-developed information but it needs more general information that readers can easily digest.