User:Marie-Joseph Angélique/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title: Nancy Gardner Prince
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I think here the very little content that is present, is relevant to her life although her accomplishments are not documented in a thorough way. Also her own individual accomplishments are not documented set apart from other more well known people.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I think the implementation of the only quote taken from some indiscernible source is not neutral. When the writer states, "The author vividly describes local Russian customs, as well as her experiences of the Saint Petersburg flood of 1824 and the Decembrist Revolt." there is no clear source or mention of where they got this from.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Every claim does not have a citation areas where they talk about berries, traveling to Russia, documentation of her marriage, and exile etc.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * I think all of the citations are credible as they are taken from scholarly websites.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I think the article does tackle a historically underrepresented group of people as Prince is an African American woman from the 18th century.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * The talk page does not have any contributors as of now.
 * The talk page does not have any contributors as of now.


 * Sources
 * Source 1, Source 2

Option 2

 * Article title: Phillis Wheatley
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I think the content found on her page is very relevant in framing key details of her life in the way that they only include things about her life that events in her life helps to shape her into the writer that she became. I think it was also interesting to see the way they decided to analyze her poem as I felt like just mentioning some of her most prominent works could have been more concise as the scholarly critique can be portion can be judged in the same way.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I think the article is written neutrally for most of the article, but the scholarly citiques often bridge the line between analysis and opinion as critique is often not fact.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Each claim in this article does have citations.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * I think the citations are reliable because they are very reliable because there is multiple cross references sources in addition to the fact that most of them have been accessible through scholarly sites like jstore, Additionally, there are lots of different types of sources from poems, letters, magazines, books, biographies etc.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I think the article does well in highlighting the gravity of Wheatley's achievements for a black woman at that time, but I also like how it displayed the controversial nature of Wheatley's life and critiques. However this implementation of critiques seem unnecessary as it may suggest the reader to be swayed to one side over another.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * In the talk page there is a high amount of traction to the talk page and often the people responding seem to digress in a sort of overwhelming way at times.
 * In the talk page there is a high amount of traction to the talk page and often the people responding seem to digress in a sort of overwhelming way at times.


 * Sources
 * Source 1, Source 2

Option 3

 * Article title Sarah Baartman
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I think the article's content is relevant to the topic because it goes into great detail about different theories, impact, death, displays, scientific racism in general in a way that no articles I have seen yet have done. I think its interesting to see her story written in great detail here.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I think the article is written neutrally as it narrates her life clearly and easily to follow while also giving lots of sources that help support the information and does well in not standing firmly on one thing as anything that it challenges is backed up with sources.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * I think the writer of the wiki could be more clear in citations as areas like Sexism that lacks citation for its claim.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * I think the citations used are reliable because they span from a wide range of years, also has many instances of different kinds of sources present.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Yes I feel as though with the coverage of Baartman, the article highlights black woman's historical mistreatment through talking about real life events that happened to someone who actually existed.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * I think the talk page is really good at highlighting specific issues that are highlighted within particular sections that often is not seen in the talk pages I have seen as of now.
 * I think the talk page is really good at highlighting specific issues that are highlighted within particular sections that often is not seen in the talk pages I have seen as of now.


 * Sources
 * Source 1, Source 2

Option 4

 * Article title: Grace Elliott
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I think overall the article is relevant to the topic regarding Grace's peculiar past although there could be polishing.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I think the article could be more neutral with its delivery of information regarding arrest, Lord Valentia situation etc.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * The article is missing citations in the life in France section and also in her life in England and early life sections. It is alarming to see this amount of citations missing, painting vary clear continuity errors.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * I think with what citations are present, there is reasonable doubt regarding cross checking being that there is only 4 sources and 11 references in the entire article.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I think this article tackles one of the equity gaps regarding Women writers and visibility of influence in our history.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * Her talk page is moderately extensive, not to the extent that Phillis Wheatley's was. I think this talk page lacks a lot of responses to the criticism in seeable ways as every other article read that had discourse in the talk page, often followed replies from the writers either justifying or understanding claims.
 * Her talk page is moderately extensive, not to the extent that Phillis Wheatley's was. I think this talk page lacks a lot of responses to the criticism in seeable ways as every other article read that had discourse in the talk page, often followed replies from the writers either justifying or understanding claims.


 * Sources
 * Source 1, Source 2

Option 5

 * Article title: Marie Antoinette
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I think the article's content is relevant to the topic because it does well in rounding her out in a way that does not make her out to be painted one way over another.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * I think the article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * I have seen most claims have a citation to back up the finding.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * I think most if not all of her citations are reliable and there are a lot of different references and citations present.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * I think while she is a key figure in history and is a woman of her time, I think she is represented a lot, and additionally, extensively researched.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too
 * I think it is interesting to see how little talk is occurring on something so popular and of the times as Marie. Its also interesting to see the way aesthetics lead the conversation.
 * I think it is interesting to see how little talk is occurring on something so popular and of the times as Marie. Its also interesting to see the way aesthetics lead the conversation.


 * Sources
 * Source 1, Source 2 ~