User:Pfowler17/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: Norris Church Mailer
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It was assigned to me for class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It includes basic biographical information about the topic, Norris Church Mailer.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. The graphic titled "Contents" lays out the article's sections clearly in the introductory paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I believe it's quite concise.

Lead evaluation
See above. (Please "look above" for each section; I did my evaluation line by line underneath the guiding questions!)

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes; it includes basic biographical information, information on her relationship with Norman Mailer (i.e., what the subject is most known for), her career, and her death.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * More or less; the last content edits were made mid-July 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't believe so.

Content evaluation
See above.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes; for the most part. The only language I thought was not neutral are below:
 * "simple country people": This phrase, seen in the section "Early life," is imbalanced. "Simple" can be synonymous with "feeble-minded," and it might be read wrong.
 * "he callously responded": This phrase, seen in the section "Writing," is loaded. Describing Norris Mailer's response as "callous[ed]" is unnecessarily emotionally charged.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * See above on neutrality.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not in my opinion.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
See above.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I would say. I'm thinking it must be tough to link "reliable sources" on biographical information (these are celebrities, and not all reporting on them is "backed by science," so to speak), but we're linking to reputable books and news sources like the New York Times.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. From a brief search on Norris Church Mailer, most of the available information on her relates to her marriage to the more famous Norman Mailer. I cross-referenced her Wiki page with the Project Mailer Wiki and a lot of the sources are the same: so there must not be much more references available on her.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do.

Sources and references evaluation
See above.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I believe so.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few:
 * "Norris and her young son moved to Russellville, Arkansas and explored her love of the arts...": This sentence has a compound subject ("Norris and her young son"), so when the verb is listed as "explored," it implies both she and her son "explored" Mailer's love of the arts.
 * Punctuation: In the quote from Norman Mailer, "It's not as bad as I thought it would be," the comma is written outside the quotation mark. Typically, in American English, punctuation is tucked inside quotes.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I believe so. The article follows the arc of her life (childhood, career, marriage, death)--just as biographical information should.

Organization evaluation
See above.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes; a headshot of the subject.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes; it includes a caption of when/where the photo was taken.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I'm actually not sure. I'm still learning about the images policy/am working on this.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The image is clear; not in the way of the text; and catches your eye, since it's the only image on the page.

Images and media evaluation
See above.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The main sections in the talk page are on verbiage; organization; and whether or not Norris's marriage to Norman Mailer should be a larger section, since it's arguably what she's most known for.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I don't see a rating, but it's part of the following projects:
 * WikiProject Women's History
 * WikiProject Biography
 * WikiProject United States / Arkansas
 * WikiProject Journalism
 * WikiProject New York City


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A; my class hasn't talked about this article much collectively (yet).

Talk page evaluation
See above.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Not sure how to answer this? I would say its status is "mostly complete."
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It's easy to read, well-written, and has helpful templates (the contents widget and biography widget). No section overpowers another.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Minor copyediting.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it's well-developed. It has several sources, was worked on by multiple editors, and is current.

Overall evaluation
See above.

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: