User:Mellizzia/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: Marion Campbell (archaeologist)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I wanted to choose an article that was noted by the women in archaeology task force as a one that could use improvement. I chose this particular article on Marion Campbell because I felt that it was structured enough that I could evaluate it using the criteria below (i.e., it had headings), yet I also felt it could use considerable improvement in terms of balance, structuring, and sources.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Lead is concise but does not accurately describe the article's topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes (although I think it is awkward and not so much a description as it is a list of the sections)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise, but I do not think it is detailed enough or at least that the details present need to be clarified and expanded

Lead evaluation
The lead is indeed concise; however, it does not accurately reflect the article's content. The introductory sentence emphasizes Campbell's importance as an archaeologist, but only one line in the article is devoted to her archaeological work; it also includes the value word "notable" without attributing this opinion to a specific source.

The second sentence is overly stylized and not concise enough. It notes that Campbell was a playwright, a detail that is not included or cited in the main article. It also mentions again that she was an archaeologist, a redundant detail that should be omitted here for clarity and conciseness. It is also unclear in the article how Campbell worked as a historian, a profession that is listed in the Lead.

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, except for the last sentence which is only tangentially related and could be introduced better
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content about her archaeological work is lacking, content about a play based on her life does not belong in its current state

Content evaluation
Based on the lead and article title, it is suggested that Marion Campbell was first and foremost an archaeologist. However, there is only one line dedicated to her work in archaeology. Information about her archaeological work is severely lacking, giving it's apparent importance -- archaeology is lumped with "local history" (whatever that means) under a single category, and "Political Activity" and "Novelist" are given their own categories, throwing off the balance of the article.

Details about her archaeological work and perhaps her background in archaeology (if sources permit) need to be added. Additional links to other topics of interest in the article would also greatly improve it. The final sentence of the article, describing a play based off of Campbell's life, either needs to be given its own heading or removed, as it is not relevant to Campbell's work as a novelist; it should only be kept in a section about her legacy, influence, or the like.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, except for several misleading adjectives noted below
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not particularly, but see below
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no cited viewpoints at all in this article (just wording that needs to be changed or improved by the addition of more sources) so there is technically nothing that is over- or under-represented
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Wording suggests that Campbell was important and noteworthy but these claims are not corroborated by reputable sources -- seems as if the article is trying to persuade the reader to view Campbell favorably

Tone and balance evaluation
The article uses several opinionated adjectives without proper citation: "notable" in the first sentence, "instrumental" in the next to last sentence in "Archaeology and Local History," and "even" in the last sentence.

As noted above, the lead and title suggest that the article would mainly focus on Campbell's work as an archaeologist, suggesting that this was her most important contribution. However, the article focuses equally on her work as a politician and novelist. As such, the balance could be improved by changing these misleading statements or adding information to accurately reflect her archaeological contributions. The article seems biased in suggesting that she was an important and notable archaeologist but providing few cited details to support these claims.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Two facts are missing citations; almost everything is plagiarized (see below)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, two of the sources are anecdotal and one has no bearing on the factual information in the article
 * Are the sources current? Two out of five sources are obituaries written after Campbell's death in 2000, one was copyrighted in 2020, and the other two are unknown
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources in this article are not very strong. The obituaries contain some contradictory information and do not have very reputable authorship. The historical preservation websites seem to be more informational, but again they aren't very thorough. What is much more concerning is the amount of plagiarism in this article:


 * Possible plagiarism in the second sentence of the "Early Life" section.
 * "Political Activity" section is plagiarized.
 * Second sentence of the lead is plagiarized (also not even cited).
 * Hard to analyze the validity of the second source -- it was apparently written by someone who knew Campbell personally but there is no byline to permit further investigation.
 * Last paragraph in "Archaeology and Local History" is plagiarized.
 * Second paragraph in "Archaeology and Local History" is plagiarized.



Organization
Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No -- it is largely plagiarized, and the sentences are kept in their original, confusing form
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No obvious errors, though some minor improvements could be made
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No -- I think the headings need to be reworked in order to be less confusing and more informative

Organization evaluation
This article is poorly organized. Campbell's work as an archaeologist should have its own section, given its central role in her life. "Local History" could be reworked into a section on museum and preservation advocacy that better represents Campbell's work. Also, "Novelist" should be changed to "Writer," and should be expanded upon considerably (there are many important publications that are left out, including a biography, children's books, and Campbell's work as an editor). There should also be a new section added on the subject of Campbell's legacy, which would include the two plays written by Rebecca Sharp that were greatly influenced by her and the library named after her. Also, the "Early Life" and "Political Activity" section seem kind of lacking and would be better organized as a single "Personal Life" heading, that could encompass Campbell's family, political beliefs, land management, and close friendship with Mary Sandeman.

Of course, the plagiarized passages need to be removed. The information contained in them can be represented much more concisely and in an easier to read way.

Images and Media
Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media in this article.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations about this article
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a low-importance stub-class article; it is part of WikiProject Archaeology, particularly Women in Archaeology, as well as WikiProject Biography, Women Scientists, and Scotland
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not discussed this topic, nor are Wikipedians discussing this topic

Talk page evaluation
There is almost no information on the Talk Page. This is a shame because there are many problems with this article!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article has major issues and needs to be edited ASAP
 * What are the article's strengths? It doesn't really have any
 * How can the article be improved? Plagiarism needs to be removed, needs to be reorganized and expanded upon
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is severely poorly developed -- it needs to be completely rewritten and expanded

Overall evaluation
This article is quite a mess and needs to be fixed!

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Marion Campbell (archaeologist)