User:Maxlynsw/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Millicent Brown

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have not previously heard of Millicent brown but her page was attached to the Smithsonian feed. However, upon reviewing it, I found the overall lack of information and context quite interesting. I believe her contributions to the desegregation movement was quite significant yet the page does not paint the entire picture of her significance.

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.)

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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?
 * Yes but it seems/feels insufficient.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise to the extent where more information should be found/provided to contextualize her life.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * This is debatable as it has to been updated nor revised in over 5 months
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Contextual content regarding the Somebody Had to Do It Project was removed by editors. This sentence "In collaboration with the Avery Research Center, the project details the history of African Americans fighting for better education in the United States from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement." should remain
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes as it directly details/acts as a bibliography for the life of a notable desegregationist activist.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Not necessarily
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Generalizations
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * N/A
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * N/A

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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?
 * It is substantial
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not technically. The most recent one is 2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes. It is a good array of sources
 * 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.)
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None whatsoever
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is not apart of a wiki project. Start class rating.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Overall, it lacks content, context, and details. I believe most removals were a bit overboard as necessary information was take away.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It needs to be improved heavily.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It shares info about a person who little is clearly recorded about
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information and context in general
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Heavily underdeveloped