User:KeiraDig/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Women surrealists
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose Art History as a topic, and then Women Surrealists to evaluate because it's both relevant to our class and very interesting to me!

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Yes, the article is organized by the types of art the women created, and they're also listed in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the date that the surrealism movement started.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's very concise.

Lead evaluation
It's short and to the point! Seems very effective to me.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it lists women surrealists.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think there's anything that doesn't belong, some artists are probably missing, but that's only because there are so many artists out there.

Content evaluation
Lots of women surrealists listed! Easily accessible content.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very objective, probably because it's in a listing format. Each artist is presented very factually.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * From what I can tell they are very thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There's an article from 2018, so I think they're pretty current!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes!

Sources and references evaluation
Sources overall seem thorough and current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it's divided by art medium of the women in question.

Organization evaluation
The article is very clearly and neatly organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It uses one image at the top of the article to serve as an introduction.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
Since there's only one image, I think it's done well, although I wouldn't mind a few more visual aids.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Very little conversation, mostly about how short the article is.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It doesn't seem to be rated, but it's part of multiple women's history projects!
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses it very objectively and often without context.

Talk page evaluation
It actually surprised me how little discussion there was on the talk page, but I suppose that makes sense given that the article isn't particularly detailed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's described as "stubby" and "low-class" in the context of Women's history, so I don't think it's anyone's priority right now, and it's developed enough to be informative at the moment.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It states information very clearly, factually, and objectively.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It isn't very detailed and is definitely missing some female artists, for an article that is attempting to improve the canon of women's history.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It's well-developed in quality, but underdeveloped in quantity.

Overall evaluation
The article is a good rudimentary basis for providing information, I do think it could do with a little more detail.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: