User:Nbd1234/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ada Yonath

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Ada E. Yonath is an influential female scientist. She received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2009, and her work sounds very interestnig to me.

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 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, but it is very vague on her achievements. It should be a little more specific in how it is that Yonath contributed to research on ribosomes.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, but it seems there is more attention towards her awards and prizes than her actual scientific discoveries.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Her role as "the current director of the Helen and Milton A. Kimmelman Center for Biomolecular Structure and Assembly of the Weizmann Institute of Science" is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise but it seems to me it should be a little more detailed in her scientific discoveries.

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?
 * Her political views are briefly mentioned. It is a little random; no other background is provided for this and wether or not she is actively involved politically is not discussed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The only thing mentioned about the equity gap in science is in the lead; "the first Israeli woman to win the Nobel Prize out of ten Israeli Nobel laureates,[2] the first woman from the Middle East to win a Nobel prize in the sciences,[3] and the first woman in 45 years to win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.[4]" The article does not go further to discuss women in science or any sexism that Yonath may have experienced.

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?
 * No. When her political views are expressed, they are not described as contentious. They should be followed with the public's response or an outline of what opposing parties believe to provide context.
 * 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?
 * No. When her scientific contributions/discoveries are discussed, sources are not provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Most of the sources discuss her prizes; less so biographies and literature that she herself has published.
 * 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.)
 * The sources used are good.
 * 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?
 * None identified.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Biography can be further broken down, though, into "youth" and "current" to make the article clearer. Additionally, "education" and "politics" can be separated.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * She has contributed significantly to knowledge on the structure and function of ribosomes; images showing this structure would be useful.
 * 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?
 * Much of the conversation on the talk page discusses her youth and upbringing- specifically her religious (Jewish) and ethnic backgrounds. There is disagreement on spelling of her name in English (since it is translated from Hebrew). Additionally, there is disagreement expressed on including her political views.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated C-class. It is part of several WikiProjects (Science and Academia, Chemistry, Women Scientists, Chicago, Israel, Women's History, Jewish Women).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is not much discussion of barriers she may have faced as a female scientist.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-class.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Provides a good breakdown of her achievements, her life, and her discoveries.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be edited to further detail her research.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Well-developed but does not give enough attention to her actual scientific work (rather than the success she experienced for it).

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.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting