User:McKenzie Funk/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article:Elda Emma Anderson
 * I have chosen this article because I remember learning very little about the contributions made by women in science through out high school. As a STEM major, it is frustrating that examples of women who have made discoveries have not been properly cited.

Lead
I like the introductory sentence as it introduces her for her life's work in a concise manner. I honestly think that this section is strong as it lists all of her accomplishments in her career with out adding information that makes this short summary too detailed. There is a table of contents in the Lead, and all of the links work. I do not think that the lead is too short or too long; it is a very strong section of the page.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
The content is up to date with the sources that I have researched; however, I believe that there is extra information that is not needed and information that is not included that is relevant to the article. For example, the "Career and Research" section includes her titles in the various positions that she held, but it does not delve into what she contributed to these positions. For example, all that the article states about her work for the Manhattan Project at Princeton University was that she was a part of it. The reader does not know what she contributed and, therefore, does not know the significance of her work. Furthermore, the article does not state the significance of her preparing the first sample of pure Uranium 235 or why it was used for the project. Many important aspects of her career are left up to the reader to define. I know that it is not the place for personal input, but I think that descriptions of her actual contributions and not just the titles of her job would be a useful, objective addition to the article, especially when referencing her work with the Health Physics program (the reader is left wondering what Health Physics is or what program she actually designed).


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
The article for the most part is neutral; however, there are sections where claims seem to be biased and opinionated. For example, in the "Early Life and Education" section of the article, they describe her earlier position as a Kindergarten teacher as surprising and that she found her calling to science later throughout the help of her older sister. This makes it seem as though her original job was beneath her and credits her interests to other people without proof. I would eliminate this to make her biography more objective. Other than that one particular comment, the article seems very neutral and objective in their recount of her life and her accomplishments.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
The article is backed up by reliable secondary sources, most of them being published biographies of women in science or peer reviewed articles. All of the links are working; however, some lead to books that have to be purchased to be read (I do not know if this is a problem or not). All of the sources are current, and if they are not current, then they were published about her work while she was alive.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
The article is well organized in that it breaks the information into six, easy to understand categories. Each section goes in chronological order which makes it more understandable since it follows a timeline. There are no spelling errors; however, there are some grammatical errors regarding the use of commas and semicolons. The article is concise and well written; descriptions of occupations and positions would be helpful.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Other than one picture of her security badge, there are no other pictures to help enhance the understanding of the article. The one photograph included is well captioned and does enhance the the reader's understanding of the article as it shows her security badge while she worked at the lab that the authors were referencing in the article. I would add the picture on the other side of the paragraph to make the break down of the paragraphs easier to understand and so the image would appear closer to where it is relevant in said paragraph. The photograph does adhere to the copy right regulations as the the badge picture is in the public domain of the United States government, so it is not a copyrighted image, and the image is given full credit to the original owner (the United States government).


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page
The conversations on the Wikki Talk page are mostly about the details of her birth, death, and timeline of events of her accomplishments. This article is a part of Wiki projects (Women's Biography/Military/Science and Academia, Physics/Biographies, Wisconsin, Military History, and Women's History/Scientists) and is rated as a Good Article (GA).


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions
The article is a great start and is considered a good article by Wikipedia. The dates and timelines have been double checked, and the facts are appropriate and relevant. The strengths of the article include the Lead section, the sources used, and organization of the article. The article could improve the bias that is evident in the "Early life and Education" section and include more accurate descriptors of her achievements in the "Career and Research" section. Furthermore, including more images that enhance the article would be beneficial (maybe a picture of the lab or the project). The article is well-developed, but it could use some finishing touches to help properly give a biography of her life and achievements.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?