User:Kristinbell/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: Mary Treat
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: She is one of the writers we are reading about this week.

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? Partially.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Partially.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation:
The lead could more closely align with the major sections. In addition, some of the information in the lead are a bit ambiguous and not completely covered in the sections ("Treat's contributions to both botany and entomology were extensive—four species of plants and animals were named after her, including an amaryllis, Zephyranthes treatae (now called Zephyranthes atamasca var. treatae), and two ant species (Aphaenogaster mariae and Aphaenogaster treatae).")

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Content evaluation
The article seems to have relevant content that is up-to-date. There is one citation noted as missing.

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? It does use the word "extensive" in relation to her contributions to botany and entomology. I don't know what qualifies as an "extensive" contribution.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and balanced. I wonder about the use of the word "extensive" for her contributions to botany and entomology. I don't know how to evaluate that.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? ???
 * Are the sources current? Some are.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes. Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? ???
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some do, some don't.

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.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * 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.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? About Links
 * How is the article rated? C-Class, Low Importance Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? more neutral

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is in good shape
 * What are the article's strengths? A lot of information
 * How can the article be improved? Some links are broken
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well developed

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: