User:LGrace2001/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Crochet hook

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 "Crochet Hook" because it was something that related to my interests and I felt it had room for improvements. I want to look at through the lense of DEi, specifically ableism, and how crochet hooks can be adapted for people that are disabled.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * 2) Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, but it does provide a general overview of the history and types of crochet hooks, as well as their use in the craft of crochet.
 * 3) Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * 4) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise
 * 5) Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * 6) s the content up-to-date? Yes
 * 7) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think adaptive crochet hooks should be included under the "Types" section or as a new section
 * 8) Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The topic does not directly relate to an underrepresented group but I do think it could if talked about adaptive hooks.
 * 9) Is the article neutral? Yes
 * 10) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 11) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * 12) Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No
 * 13) Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
 * 14) Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there could be more sources thought
 * 15) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think there could be more sources
 * 16) Are the sources current? Yes, latest is 2020
 * 17) Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, this is an area that can be improved on
 * 18) 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.)
 * 19) Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
 * 20) Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 21) Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * 22) Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
 * 23) Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * 24) Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * 25) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * 26) Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, could be more
 * 27) What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It does not discuss ways in which disabled people crochet
 * 28) How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C and WikiProject Crochet
 * 29) What is the article's overall status? It's just okay where it is but I think is can be more flushed out
 * 30) What are the article's strengths? It's clear and concise, and provides a good structure for the article.
 * 31) How can the article be improved? It needs to be more flushed out in more DEI topics.
 * 32) How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped