User:Lauraaifos/Evaluate an Article

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Oppenheimer

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 this article because I thought the person's name was pretty cool and the fact that she was an astrophysicist intrigued me even more so. This article matters because generally, most historical women in STEM are not covered often or brought to light and that is very important to our history to do so since most STEM field achievements were made by women. My prelimiary impression of it was that it was pretty short and only seemed to include her major awards.

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.)

Overall, the article does not seem too bad (I am not a Wiki expert and I am still learning how to navigate) but given the guiding questions and aspects, it does provide most important and main idea information. The main issue I did notice was the fact that there was a page inserted that did not exist, concerning a project Oppenheimer had partaked in. There were no images provided so that was a let down for sure, because we do not get an image of who this amazing woman is. Her personal life information only covers where she grew up and that she is a transwoman who came out in 2014. There could have definitely been more details of her personal life that provided a deeper understanding of this astrophysicist. Another poor aspect of this article is the talk page. There are not enough discussions taking place from other Wiki editors, so we are not really given other opinions or expert reviews. To improve this article most, I think there should definitely be more images/media included, a more detailed disucssion on Oppenheimer's achievements and not just listing her awards, an in-depth analysis of her education and projects without only providing the things she "may have co-led" on. Another aspect that can be improved would be to include a lot more Wiki editors' peer reviews and other Wikiprojects that give other points of views for this article and the person it is aiming to analyze.