User:Joe Cesare/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Magda Staudinger

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.)

I chose Magda Staudinger because she was a pioneering woman in the field of psychology. She was one of the first female psychologists to be awarded a doctorate in psychology. My first impression of it was that she has done extraordinary work and was instantly interested in reading about her.

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
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
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * 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?
 * It is pretty concise

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, it gives a good background, but does not go into much detail on her work
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, it is outdated
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is good content that is missing, including more detail on her work and achievements (there are links to her work but not stated directly in article)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

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
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the representation of viewpoints are balanced
 * 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?
 * It seems to be lacking reliable secondary sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Somewhat, could be better
 * Are the sources current?
 * No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No
 * 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.)
 * Yes I believe there is better sources that are available, however, this article and the sources give a good basis of her
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the link 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?
 * It is a little hard to read but the writing is clear
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It seems to have some grammatical errors, no spelling
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, it only has a biography section

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No

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 are no conversations on the talk page
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Yes it is apart of a WikiProject
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It lacks sections and a lot of information. This article is a C level article, which is an article that needs work.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It seems like an article to get a slight idea of the women, however, it is not reliable and a good informative source
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strength of the article is linking links to her selected works that viewers can click on and explore
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can improve by adding more subsections and information, as well as having better secondary sources to make the information verifiable and reliable.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is undeveloped