User:Kroyerplays/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mary Cutler Fairchild

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because on the surface it appeared to be incomplete.

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

Question: Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Answer: No, it is vague and overly general.

Question: Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Answer: There is no description of the articles major sections aside from a brief table of contents.

Question: Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

Answer: No.

Question: Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Answer: It is overly concise and lacks meaningful information.

Content

Question: Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Answer: Yes, it has to do with the life of Mary Cutler Fairchild.

Question: Is the content up-to-date?

Answer: No, half of the sources are dated after 2010, the other half are before 1910.

Question: Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Answer: There is only a small amount of content on her life. The article only briefly talks about sporadic elements of her life's work.

Question: Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Answer: It deals with the underrepresentation of women in library sciences.

Tone and Balance

Question: Is the article neutral?

Answer: It appears to be favoured towards representing Mary Cutler Fairchild in a positive light.

Question: Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Answer: Not explicitly, however it appears to heavily cite the opinions of Mary Cutler Fairchild without providing historical context beyond anecdotal claims.

Question: Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Answer: It is only her viewpoint which is represented, it should be noted it is represented in fragments and not an explicit position on a matter.

Question: Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Answer: There is a lack of diverse opinions on the subject.

Question: Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Answer: It appears to be written in such a way to persuade the reader to favor Mary Cutler Fairchild using anecdotal evidence and lack of historical context. It is not explicitly persuading the reader to a particular viewpoint on a particular subject, rather it is a culmination of points at a more general understanding towards women in library science. Because the article appears to lack historical context it seems impossible to otherwise disagree with the viewpoint being represented.

Sources and References

Question: Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Answer: No, according to my research encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source and thus is not a reliable secondary source.

Question: Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Answer: No, one of the sources is a blog post.

Question: Are the sources current?

Answer: No, half of them are written before 1910.

Question: Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Answer: I wouldn't say so, especially considering the pre 1910 sources.

Question: 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.)

Answer: It's a mixed result. On the one hand there are references to her name on JSTOR and Google Scholar, however there appears to be no secondary books or articles explicitly written about her.

Question: Check a few links. Do they work?

Answer: Yes

Organization and writing quality

Question: Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Answer: It is made up of random facts with fail to follow a clear logical sequential formula.

Question: Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Answer: There are a few issues with sentence structure as well as syntax errors.

Question: Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Answer: There is very little information. The two headings are vague and fail to represent the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

Question: Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Answer: There is a picture of Mary Cutler Fairchild.

Question: Are images well-captioned?

Answer: It provides an brief explanation of the particular encyclopedia from which it was taken. However it is not linked or cited.

Question: Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Answer: Yes

Question: Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Answer: Yes

Talk page discussion

Question: What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Answer: There are no conversations.

Question: How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Answer: C Rated, High importance. Biography (science and academia)

Question: How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Answer: There are no conversations.

Overall impressions

Question: What is the article's overall status?

Answer: It's mediocre but provides some insightful information.

Question: What are the article's strengths?

Answer: It provides some insightful information.

Question: How can the article be improved?

Answer: It needs to be written more clearly, and needs more information. The subdivisions between majors points are vague and do not represent the subject being discussed. The topics also change rapidly without subdivisions.

Question: How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I would argue it's an underdeveloped article because it lacks information from reliable sources to expand upon the subject. It is written with a slanted viewpoint that lacks much historical context. It also fails to provide much meaningful information on the work done by Mary Cutler Fairchild.