User:PeppyParis/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nancy Kirk

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was chosen because it is the topic which my group is working on for our Wiki Assignment. I felt it would be important to take a deeper look at how the article could be improved so that I had a better baseline to work with. My preliminary impression of the work was that it was quite well done, but was just missing more details and information.

Evaluate the article
The article on Nancy Kirk has a concise and clear introductory sentence which refers to the topic - in this case the British geologist who created theories relating to graptolites - and provides a brief description on what is discussed. There is some room to add a little more detail and clarification, but overall the lead is well done.

Each subsection relates to the topic and offers insight into who Nancy Kirk was, though some of the paragraphs are relatively short. Everything appears to belong and the information appears to be fairly current, based on a quick glance at the sources. As the article focuses on one of the many women within the field of geology, it is able to address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps through its insight and acknowledgement of the achievements and discoveries she made.

Overall, the article is written from a neutral standpoint and there is nothing heavily biased within the writing, however it is important to note that there are a couple sentences which slightly deviate from the overarching tone of the work - which may influence how the article is perceived. Its organization makes it easier to read and the grammatical errors, if any, do not take away from the flow of the article.

Citations are scattered throughout the article, and the sources appear to be reliable. Upon looking at the references, it is likely that the information is up to date, but there are a few  sources that are difficult to access as they cost money to view or are unavailable.

Although there is only one image on the page, it is captioned well and positioned in an aesthetic way. If anything, adding more images would help further establish one's understanding and add some more depth to the article.

On the talk page, there are no discussions other than notifications about the article being a part of a Wiki Education course assignment. It is rated as C-class and of interest to WikiProjects: biography/science and academia, geology, and women scientists. One of the articles strengths is how concise, clear, and organized it is. To improve this article, one would need to go more in-depth in the discussion of the subsections, and add more references to support the information they are providing. (As mentioned earlier, more images would help to further enhance the work as well.)

All in all, the article has a good foundation, and is simply underdeveloped.