User:Morgan3Davis/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearl_Kendrick&oldid=1028102947

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because upon further research, I was surprised that a woman who made such significant contributions to the scientific community was not more well represented on Wikipedia. This article was labeled as a "Start" article meaning that it could benefit from quite a bit more detail. Upon first impression, I didn't see anything seriously wrong with the article other than that there were a few gaps in information presented and a source was used that didn't appear to be very reliable (the Pearl Kendrick Wikipedia page was listed as one of the sources.)

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.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead is adequate, but could use more work. The introductory sentence is too short and doesn't include enough pertinent information relevant to the article. It also doesn't include a brief description of all of the article's major section. However, the lead does do a good job in not mentioning extraneous information that is not present in the article and it is not overly detailed.

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. There are a few sentences that don't seem to belong such as the one mentioning that Kendrick's father was an engineer without tying it back into anything relevant. The content is up-to-date with most of the latest information about Kendrick and there aren't any major sections that are omitted or don't belong.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the article has a neutral tone. The sentences are simple and easy to follow and there don't appear to be a lot of claims made by the editor. There was a sentence mentioning what motivated Kendrick to start researching whooping cough, so I believe that will need to be edited out since the citation that goes along with that statement does not support that those are Kendrick's actual thoughts. There aren't any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented and the article does not try to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and references evaluation
For the most part, yes. The article heavily relies on reliable secondary sources, but there was one source that upon further inspection did not appear to be very reliable and will have to be removed. The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on Pearl Kendrick's life and research. The sources are mainly current. Some are a little older, but that is understandable considering the fact that Kendrick died in 1980. All the links are working.

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written but could use some touching up. Some sentences, while short and concise, sound a bit choppy. This can be remedied by presenting more information in some sentences while keeping in mind that more complex sentences can be confusing. The article does not have any spelling or grammatical errors from what I can tell. The article's sections are relevant and they create a nice flow for the reader. The article may benefit from the addition of some subheadings.

Images and media evaluation
The article includes one image of Pearl Kendrick that acts as a great visual aid for readers. Her name is above the picture which helps to identify who she is and there is information about her birth and death dates under the picture as well as some cross-listed terms that you can click on that are related to her profession. The image does adhere to Wiki's copyright regulations and the image is positioned on the right hand side of the page as not to interrupt the flow of text in the body of the article.

Talk page evaluation
There were no conversations going on on the talk page. This article is part of 5 Wiki projects and is rated as a Start class mid to high level importance. We have never explicitly mentioned Dr. Kendrick in class, so the Wiki page does a decent job at giving an overview of her life and research.

Overall evaluation
This is an informative biography. A strength of this article is that it uses a wide variety of sources to support statements and it is very organized. If more images can be included that follow Wiki's copyright regulations could be included in the article that would be fantastic.The article is well developed and has already laid a strong foundation for future editors.