User:Mhaus20/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Virginia Ali - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
'''I chose Virginia Ali because I found it interesting that she started a food restaurant here in DC. I enjoy going to different restaurants, so I may try hers one day. My preliminary impression is that the article is brief and could use more information added.'''

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? NO
 * 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? CONCISE

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? YES
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? YES
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? YES but very brief

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? YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NO
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? NO
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? YES
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NO

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? YES
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? YES
 * Are the sources current? YES
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? YES
 * 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.) NO, there is not much information on her
 * 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? YES
 * 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? YES but only 1
 * Are images well-captioned? YES
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? YES
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? YES

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? There is one conversation, but all the editors seem to agree that the article is long-enough and well-written.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated "Start-Class". It is apart of "US/DC", "Food and Drink", "Women", and "African Diaspora" WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have talked in class about the lack of representation in sources. Many sources used within Wikipedia are from majority white authors which skews the information as it misses many alternative and important viewpoints. In contrast, this article uses a very diverse set of sources such as the "AFRO American Newspapers" and "Where are the Black Chefs?".

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The article seems to be very well written. Although, it seems incomplete as it is missing information.
 * What are the article's strengths? Diversity of sources, up-to-date sources, factually correct, grammatically correct, many editors
 * How can the article be improved? Needs more information on her early life and life running the restaurant
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-developed

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.