User:Jed Edgardo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:


 * Name of article: Paola Velez
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because Paola Velez is a pastry chef who also advocates for social justice. "Bakers Against Racism"

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.

Evaluation:
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The article's lead section is clear and concise. It briefly outlines who Paola Velez is and what her accomplishments are. It is not overly descriptive and doesn't include any information that isn't elaborated in the rest of the article.

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.

Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The sections included in the body of the article can effectively describe who Paola Velez is and her activism. The section "Personal Life" can be added on to. It can address her motivations behind cooking and what inspired her activism.

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.

Evaluation:
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article does a good job of maintaining neutrality throughout. The bulk of the article is in the "Activism" section and this shows that the Wikipedian who constructed the article focused on how Paola Velez advocated for social justice. In order to show more balance, more content should be added to the other sections of the article especially "Personal Life" as it is the shortest section.

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.

Evaluation:
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Most of the sources cited are from distinguished new sites such as npr, the New York Times, the Washington Business Journal, and others. The articles and websites where the information is cited from are Washington DC based which makes sense because Paola Velez lives in DC and most of her recognized work was done in DC. Other types of sources cited are websites to organizations mentioned in the article which Paola was a part of.

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

Evaluation:
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

There are no grammatical or spelling errors in the article. The sections included in the body properly support and describe Paola Velez and her work. It clearly states who she is and what her work has done.

Images and Media
Evaluation:
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There is a single image on the page and it is of Paola Velez herself. It abides by Wikipedia's copyright regulations and it is appropriate for the article because it gives the viewer a visual of who Paola Velez is.

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.

Evaluation:
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There were no previous conversations going on but I added a topic regarding the addition of content in the article. The article is rated in the start-class and given low-importance.

Overall impressions
Evaluation:
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is strong in providing information about Paola Velez as an activist but it lacks in content about the rest of her life. It can be improved by adding more to the sections about her early and personal life. This article has a strong base but continues to needs development.

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

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.)

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.)