User:Minstraussman/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: Eula Biss
 * I chose this article because it is the biography of a highly respected and award-winning essayist who I greatly admire. It is also quite short.

Lead


The Lead does include an intro sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. There is no description of each of the sections. It does include information not present in the article. It is overly detailed

Content


The article's content is relevant to the topic. It is not entirely up-to-date, as it does not reflect her recent interviews and writing about the ongoing pandemic. It would be nice if the article gave more information about her essay writing and what she teaches. There is no content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance


The article is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. There are no viewpoints over/under represented. There is no persuasive language.

Sources and References


The facts in the article are mostly backed up by a reliable source of information. However, I'm not sure if the Northwestern Uni website bio is considered reliable. The sources don't represent all of the available news stories about the writer. The sources are current to 2015, so they are five years old. Two of the links are broken. External articles could be updated.

Organization


The article is very, very short. It is concise and easy to read, but it doesn't give a sense of why this person is important or has won all of these awards, or even the nature of her work beyond the titles of her books. There aren't any glaring or immediately obvious grammatical or spelling errors. The article is fairly well-organized but does not include a lot of information.



Images and Media


The photograph of the author is from 2014. The image is not well-captioned (doesn't give date). Yes, CC-Attribution.

Checking the talk page

 * Looks like the page had been targeted by a sockpuppet that's been banned. It is part of WikiProject Biography, Chicago, Women writer. Rated Start-class by all of them. Rated mid-importance on Women writers importance scale. It was part of a project last year. It does not appear to noticeably differ from traditional articles.
 * Looks like the page had been targeted by a sockpuppet that's been banned. It is part of WikiProject Biography, Chicago, Women writer. Rated Start-class by all of them. Rated mid-importance on Women writers importance scale. It was part of a project last year. It does not appear to noticeably differ from traditional articles.

Overall impressions

 * The article appears quite short. On the plus side, it appears to be mostly accurate with regards to the information it does provide. However, I wish it went into more detail about the nature of Biss's work and reflected more recent news coverage. This article appears to be underdeveloped.
 * The article appears quite short. On the plus side, it appears to be mostly accurate with regards to the information it does provide. However, I wish it went into more detail about the nature of Biss's work and reflected more recent news coverage. This article appears to be underdeveloped.

++++++

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


 * Name of article: Mary Jo Bang
 * I chose this article because it is the biography of a female poet that I like.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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


 * 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


 * 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


 * 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?

==== Not all of the facts in the article are backed by a reliable secondary source of information, although most are. One of the links is broken. The sources do not appear very thorough. The external links are limited. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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


 * 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


 * 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 question


 * 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?