User:Oliviafrye/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: Elizabeth Haysom
 * I have always been interested in the minds of murderers and I think this article is particularly relevant since Elizabeth went to UVA. There are also a lot of holes in the article, like it does not include any explanation of motive or any details of her trial.

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic of Elizabeth Haysom and how she murdered her parents. The Lead fails to briefly describe each section covered in the wikipedia article, leaving out the "In the Media" section. It also includes information about her early life and education that is not included in the rest of the article. Overall, the Lead is concise and does a good job giving a general summary of the article.

Content Evaluation


The article's content is relevant to the topic, but the section names are a little random and do not seem to encompass the purpose of the sections. The information is also not up-to-date and does not include the fact that she was granted parole this past November. It also does not mention the book that was written about her in 1990. The article also does not include anything about her motives.

Tone and Balance Evaluation
The article seems to be very neutral since it is not a very political topic. It is also not a persuasive piece. It does a good job of presenting the facts of the murder without stating an opinion.

Sources and References Evaluation

 * Almost all of the information in the article is from news channels which are not peer reviewed like scholarly articles. From my research there are many more scholarly sources that the writer could have chosen to use instead of the news channels. The sources, however, have a lot of information on the topic from when it was first happening which is good. I think that the sources could be more current and include information about her parole. All of the sources that I clicked linked me to actual websites.
 * Almost all of the information in the article is from news channels which are not peer reviewed like scholarly articles. From my research there are many more scholarly sources that the writer could have chosen to use instead of the news channels. The sources, however, have a lot of information on the topic from when it was first happening which is good. I think that the sources could be more current and include information about her parole. All of the sources that I clicked linked me to actual websites.

Organization Evaluation
The sections seem sort of random and do not have an equal amount of information in each one of them. The article is easy to read with no clear grammar problems. A possible improvement to the article would be to reorganize the sections or add more information to each.

Images and Media Evaluation
There are no images on this article page which decreases the appeal of the article.

Talk Page Evaluation
The Talk page for this article discusses why this article was redirected as failed in the past. It also has debate over certain wording in the article and debates the accuracy of some of the facts. The article is rated as stub-class with low-importance. It was chosen to be apart of WikiProjects Virginia, WikiProject Biographies, WikiProjects Canada, WikiProjects Criminal Biographies and WikiProject Women. Wikipedia discusses the topics in terms


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions Evaluation
Overall, the article has a very low status. It is very minimal and does not include any current information. The article has a nice overview of the topic, but fails to go in depth. I would say that the article is underdeveloped, but includes good information that just needs to be expanded upon.

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: