User:Mimabe06/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: (link) Carolivia Herron
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose Carolivia Herron because she seems like an interesting person based on the current information on her Wikipedia page, albeit there is one citation and an external link that is inaccurate. She faced controversy and ALA banned book status which stemmed from her 1997 children's picture book, Nappy Hair.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, one introductory sentence acts as the Lead. It states her name and its original spelling, birthday (cited to a 2012 article at the foot of the page), that she is a writer of children's literature and studies Judaica (Jewish ceremonial art). It does not include a description of the section headings. It does include what is included in the article, but is not comprehensive to the headings--it doesn't include her education or her career as a teacher. The Lead for this article is not overly detailed. Yes it introduces the article, however, it seems like it there could be more to it.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * Having performed some quick research about her in UW Libraries, the content appears to be relevant although extremely limited. The section headings are basic: personal life, education, writing teaching and scholarship. Personal life only includes her birth parents and her Jewish conversion. She must have had more happen in her personal life than this. I believe the content is only from 2012, because this is the only reference provided. There seems to be a lot of content missing, at least in terms of details or expanding what is already included. Her study of 'Judaica' I thought was the Jewish religion, but the term is linked to "Jewish ceremonial art" which seems incorrect based on what I have read thus far (outside of this page).


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, the article is neutral. It states direct things about her in a non-biased manner. There is no occurrence of persuasion. Its very factual sounding, even without citations.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * No, I do not believe all the facts presented here are backed up by a reliable information source. One citation is from 2012, an interview she did for an online magazine. It also looks like the book Notable Black American Women (2002) is a source of the majority of this article's information. An external link to the author's website is not accurate--it links to a page talking about Lego toys.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The article follows an understandable organization in the timeline format. The section headings are logical although, as stated above, more content will justify these section headings. The article is easy to read and clear. No errors detected.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * One image of Carolivia is included. It appears to be taken on opening night of the the opera for which she wrote the libretto (2009/2011) when she was in her early 60's. It is not a close-up image, so her face is not clearly visible. The caption states this same information without a citation. (I have seen other images of her elsewhere and certainly more could be included.) The image is small and vertical, similar to a wallet size.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The talk page is likely different from others because it is a part of the Wikipedia Education Foundation. My username is assigned at the editor. There is information about this article falling under their BLP policy-- biographies of living persons-- and elaborates what is expected under the policy. Additional information is provided about WikiProjects. Under WikiProject Biography it is "Rated Start-class." According to the "quality scale" and confirming what I evaluated earlier, it lacks proper citations and resources, and is very limited in its content. Under WikiProject Children's literature it is also rated Start-class but also "Low-importance," on its "Importance scale." This means of the thousands of titles included, this article is at the lowest level of importance.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The article needs more content to increase its relevancy. It's strength is that it has even been created which allows the public to know her name. The article needs reputable resources and citations. It needs more information about her personal life, i.e. her formative years, how she became an author. It is not well-developed, it reminds me of a published rough draft. The wording is clear, it simply needs more words (content).


 * 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?

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: