User:JanaeR0808/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mae Jemison

(Please note that this is a Good Article. Dr Aaij (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this specific article because space travel has always been interesting to me. People don't hear much about black female astronauts, so I thought the article would be fun to read.

Evaluate the article
 Lead Section 


 * The lead includes a very precise introductory sentence that clearly tells what the article is going to be about.
 * The lead does include a brief description about the important areas of the article.
 * There is no uninformative areas in the lead that is not included in the article.
 * The lead is not over detailed. It is very brief and gets straight to the point while also mentioning every important area needed.

 Content 


 * The content is not irrelevant to the topic at all.
 * The article is not out dating an does include her important contributions of today.
 * There were a few areas in the section titled "Public Profile" that seemed to be very irrelevant to the topic. Nothing in this section was introduced in the lead, so there was no need to include it in the article.
 * The article itself is about an African American, female Astronaut and that itself addresses a very important unrepresented part of the African American community.
 * I am not sure that this particular aspect of African-American culture is so underrepresented. Space topics in general really are not underdeveloped at all, given the demographic. Moreover, this is a Good Article, so someone, more than one person most likely, actually spent a lot of time on it: User:Coffeeandcrumbs, User:Knope7, and User:HouseOfChange, you all did an excellent job. Thank you.

 Tone and Balance 


 * The article is not biased and is written from a neutral point of view.
 * There are no claims presented in this article and there are no opposing sides.

 Sources and References 


 * There are references included at the bottom of the article.
 * The sources mentioned in this article are reliable and back the included information.
 * There are relevant books listed in the "Reference" section of the article for ones looking for further information. It also includes links to the books that were mentioned in the Lead section of the article just incase people wanted to read the books for themselves.
 * The publisher also included external links to another informative articles about Mae Jemison.
 * Be careful with "publisher"--that's not the right word here.

 Organization and Writing Quality 


 * The article is clear, concise, and easy to read. There are no misleading sentences. Everything is straight to the point.
 * The chronological order of the topics within the article could be better. The article was written to tell about Mae Jemison's NASA career, therefore concerning her NASA career should have been first to show priority. Any other informations should have came after that. Other than that, the sections of the article were very detailed and descriptive.

 Images and Media 


 * There were a few exciting images that were included that made the article more interesting to read.
 * The images are very clear and do include captions.
 * As far as copyright goes, the source of the images were not included in the captions.

 Talk Page Discussion 


 * The article does included snippets of outside conversations held with Mae Jamison.
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about: I don't see that.

 Overall Impressions 


 * Overall this was a very good article. It was very informative and the publisher made sure they included all there was to know about Mae Jemison and her history in space travel. The article was very detailed, but also straight to the point and not too drawn out. The article is very well-developed. The strengths of this article as the ability to pin point all of the important components of Mae Jemison's contribution to space travel while also included other great things she has done outside of NASA.
 * Hmm yes, I think I agree with most of what you say, though it's all a bit general. I wish you had taken the time to, for instance, do a more detailed assessment of sources; you would have noticed that it has a really nice mix of books, some academic articles, newspaper and magazine articles, and websites. And at Talk:Mae_Jemison you can see that a very detailed review was done before this got to be a Good Articles. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)