User:Remycrowley/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: Irene Schloss
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is relevant to my area of study in biology, as well as the topic assigned for the Wiki project, female scientists. I found the information on this page interesting, and substantial enough for evaluation.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes a clear statement about the scientists most prominent area of work and where she is based out of. The article begins by stating she works with plankton in Antarctica.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead introduces major points of her education and life prior to now. However, the lead fails to include her major accomplishments in working with plankton and what sparked her interest in this subject to begin with.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead simply summarizes the major points that are later presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise, and perhaps could even use another sentence to tie up any loose ends about her field of study before beginning the content.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content focuses around the scientist's education and what led her to study plankton in Antarctica. It details her most prominent accomplishments and her findings that have added to her field of study. There is no extraneous information included, and all of the information flows nicely to create a good overview of Irene Schloss.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content was last updated in April 2020, only a few months ago. It details of all her latest findings available on the web and seems to be a comprehensive picture of her accomplishments thus far.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that does not belong, however, more research would be needed in order to add to the article. As for her accomplishments after 2014 (the most recent accomplishment included in the content, although it has been edited much more recently), a simple Google search would not suffice to find new information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * While the article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gap, it does address a female scientist: a quintessentially underrepresented group in all aspects.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article provides factual claims about her research and details her education without any bias or opinion included.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article maintains a neutral viewpoint throughout its course.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Since the article primarily deals with explaining the scientists education and her major findings, there are little to no viewpoints included at all. The only viewpoint noticeable is a writer deeming one of her findings as having "the greatest impact" without much detail on how it has affected the scientific world.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is clearly meant to inform a reader of a scientist, their education, and their major findings without forming a position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * For a short article, this page has over 10 sources which all appear to be reliable and correctly sited. A lot of research papers as well as nationally funded webpages are included to support the information presented.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources range over a multitude of years and each support the same points as mentioned in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, there are sources as recent as March 2020 for work done in 2014, proving the authors of the page have kept up to date with new findings.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I clicked on the first five links out of ten, and they all worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well organized into small sections, categorizing the major aspects of Irene Schloss. The article provides a clear overview of the most important points, backed up by facts from reliable sources.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it is clear the article has been edited for any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the two major sections of eduction/early life and career/impact paint a clear picture of Irene Schloss's both personal and professional life.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Not exactly, there is only one picture of the scientist herself. There are no pictures of the work she has done or of explanations of her scientific method.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the image of the scientist includes her name and the location, which has its own hyperlink to another Wiki page.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the image has all the credentials to be considered correct for copyright.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The photo of the scientist is included at the top of the page, which I find an appealing way to open up the article. It helps put a face to the name used throughout the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * This article is part of a bigger conversation going on in the Women Scientists project, in which Wiki editors and writers are attempting to increase the amount of information able to be found on the site on these female contributors. This project also states the points that are necessary for a biography of a living person (BLP).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article does not state a rating. It is a part of many WikiProjects, including: Biography, Women scientists, Antarctica/Argentine Antarctica, Algae, Plants, Limnology and Oceanography, Argentina, and Canada/Quebec/Education.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The page for talk is relatively inactive due to the lack of information on the scientist.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Complete and edited with modern information, but awaiting addition of more valuable insights on the scientist.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is concise and well written, with updated dates and citations that provide clear information and background on Irene.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by adding more details about her studies and work in Antarctica, and how it is affecting the science community in a bigger way. More quotes can be added if found from the scientist herself.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed for the information available on the web, but could always use improvement!

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: Talk:Irene Schloss