User:Mhamaguchi/Evaluate an Article

Article Evaluation

 * Name of article: Abby Aldrich Rockefeller
 * Why I have chosen this article to evaluate: Abby Rockefeller is an important figure in the collection of folk art and has made many important contributions via her philanthropy.

Lead
The lead does touch on an introduction to who Abby Rockefeller is. However, it has a specific reference to her contribution to the Museum of Modern Art, which detracts from the introduction and introduces that particular contribution as being her most important.

There are other accomplishments of hers (including the development of Colonial Williamsburg) that are not introduced in the introduction, even though they are major sections of the article.

All information present in the introduction is present in the article.

I would consider the specific mention of the Museum of Modern Art to skew this Lead into the "bordering on overly detailed" category.


 * 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 relevant to the topic.

The content is not outdated.

There is content that is missing. For example, there is a greater amount of attention given to Rockefeller's contributions to the Museum of Modern Art than her contributions to Colonial Williamsburg and the Abby Rockefeller Folk Art Museum, the later of which is hardly mentioned at all.


 * 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 is neutral.

There are not any bias in terms of promoting a position or argument.

There is an overrepresented desire towards highlighting Rockefeller's achievement in contributing to the Museum of Modern Art. This particular section occupies nearly more space than her whole biography and seems to eclipse her other contributions in realm of art collecting. I was left with the impression that whoever contributed to the article had a greater personal interest in the Museum of Modern Art than any of the other institutions that were enriched by Rockefeller's contributions.

The article does not attempt to persuade.


 * 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
Some of the paragraphs and sentences are missing a citation at the end, making me wonder where some of the information originated from.

The sources are somewhat thorough. There are a number of critical biographies that are indeed employed. However, they are cited very seldom! I am sure that these biographies have much more interesting and relevant information than the meager few times that they were cited are able to reflect.

The sources are current, there is information from updated online sources, as well as "classic" biographies.

I found one broken link, which I removed.


 * 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 relatively well written. I do take issue with some of the organization and sentence structure, however.

The article does not have any glaring technical problems.

The article can benefit from reorganization of the sections. For example, I would add subsections to the biography to separate the major periods of Rockefeller's life (childhood, marriage to John D. Rockefeller Jr., etc.).


 * 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
The article has one photo of the person in question. It is a clear photograph, however, more photographs would be essential to characterize the full life of Abby Rockefeller.

The sole image is not well-captioned! There is no year to indicate how old Rockefeller was at the time.

The photo is posted according to WP:NFCC#4

The single image is positioned appropriately in the introduction.


 * 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
There are no conversations occurring on this talk page. There has not been a significant contribution in the history of the article since at least 2017.

This article is an S-class, meaning it is a preliminary article with lots of room for improvement. This article is part of the following WikiProjects: Biography, United States, Museum of Modern Art Project, Women's History, and Women. Notably, the article is listed as level-5 (vital) in People, Socialites.

The way Wikipedia discusses this topic doesn't differ much from how we have thus addressed the topic in class.


 * 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 has lots of room for development, especially in the basic biography and the philanthropy sections.

I find the sources used to be strong, although the use of the sources could use improvement.

The article needs more details and improved organization. Furthermore, there needs to be a balance amongst information provided about the person.

This article meets only the basic requirements for completeness. There are many aspects and periods of this persons life that are underdeveloped or omitted.


 * 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?