User:JGtown36/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an article

Alice Kamokilaikawai Campbell

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?
 * Yes the article summarizes the life of Alice Cambell.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is fairly concise and gives me a good sense of who Alice Cambell was.

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?
 * Yes the entire article is related to Alice Cambell.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the article references sources from 2021, which is fairly recently. Alice Cambell is no longer living, so there is likely not more to add about her life.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. All of the content is related to Alice Cambell.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article is about a women in politics, women are typically less represented in politics, so the article addresses that.

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?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No the article does a good job of stating facts and not leading with any particular biases.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I do not believe so.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * There aren't a lot of different viewpoints included as the article is almost entirely facts.
 * 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?
 * Yes sources are cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they provide links etc.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes they are recent sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * 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 may be some books written that would be better used as sources. But not a ton is written about the woman.
 * Check a few links. Do they 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?
 * Yes it is very clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not think so.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is very well organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, it is just a portrait of Alice cambell.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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 article is apart of the smithsonian set of articles.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is clearly a well written article that has many contributors.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is an article that is complete. More could be added, but it is not an unfinished product.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Using language that is neutral and including a lot of facts.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could use some more pictures. It could also use more detailed stories about Alice Cambell, as the information is fairly short and consise.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is well-delevoped although definetly has some things that could be further developed and grown with detail.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }