User:Jentxmgtd/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Link: Donna Haraway

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because it's an article about an established figure in the scholar realm. Donna Haraway is a feminist scholar in the field of science and technology whose works directly link to my art practices. Although she is still a living person, she is old and had done a lot in her career. This article has existed for more than 20 years, and it had been through a lot of revisions.

My first impression is that the article is very well formed, similar to many other articles that I read on other figures in the same discipline.

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 introductory sentence states the most basic, unbiased information of Haraway (name, birthdate, position/occupation, location). There is a brief description of the major sections (start after the first sentence). The first paragraph in the lead is a brief summary of the very key themes of the article. The second paragraph in the lead includes a list of work and achievements of Haraways, which is elaborated in the later work section.

Content
The article has the content strictly relevant to the topic. The content has nothing outdated. There is no missing content. The article does deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps, because this is about an important feminist scholar, a woman in the science field, and women are historically deemed as lesser to men. The weight of the content is almost balanced, distributed accordingly to each section.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral: it doesn’t praise Haraway or claim her as an important figure. It only establish facts. There is also the critical responses to Haraway section, which shows different views built on her work.

Sources and References
All the facts are backed up by a secondary source, as there are a citation by the end of each sentences. The sources are all academic papers or peer reviewed articles. Some sources link to google scholar pages, which shows just a partial part of the whole document due to copyrights.

Organization and writing quality
Generally the sentences maintain straight forward structure with no complex linking words, concisely worded, which makes it easy to read.The structure is very clear and organized to describe a person and their list of works. However, this article has too many direct quotes from her original writings. It needs more paraphrasing.

Images and Media
The 2 images of Haraway helps reader imagine what she looks like. These are clear images with clear caption However, the image in the top features her side profile. Should it be her front view instead? And the second image serves no purpose more than showing her in 2016 on the front view with a smile.

Talk page
This article is a part of Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. This article was created or improved at an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in 2014.Some section discusses sources, paraphrasing, and structure of the article. This talk page is different to the way we discussed in class in the aspect that it directly response to part where the information

Overall
I went to the talk page and couldn’t find the rating status for this article.

The strength: The article has a complete list of works by Haraway and her biography. It has cited a long list of sources for references.

Need to improve: The article is marked as using too much direct quotes from her works and need people to help rewrite them.