User:Rosenkranz421/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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, the introduce sentence gives a clear summary of who the person is and their importance.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, there is a small table of the contents.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, all information is elaborated on in the career section of the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's very concise. Only two sentences. Maybe a little short.

Lead Evaluation: (Overall Evaluation, does it need to be revised?)

I think the main thing would be that if this article were to be expanded, then the lead section should have a little bit more information since it is rather short.

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, this is an article about a person, and this person's life, education, and carreer are relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Not quite. The latest comment in the content refers to a 2019 summary of this person's achievements. In the past few years, she probably worked on more projects than the 70 which are mentioned. The sources used also seem to be only from 2019 as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It's difficult to evaluate that certain content is missing since this is the first time of heard of this person. However, all the content is focused and relevant to her life, most of which is professional and relating to her career.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article, although it is about a woman in stem, does not address any of the issues, concerns, or difficulties that she probablity has faced as being part of that underrepresetned population, especially in NASA which has been male dominated historically. Thus, this could be a potential area the article could expand.

Overall, the content is short and should be updated to the latest stand. Many things can change in 2 to 3 years since her latest list of projects in 2019. In addition, having personal interviews or other mentions about some of the difficulites she has faced would be appropriate and are missing in the article.

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.

Overall, the tone and balance are professional. No opinions are present since all the content is just describing her life in terms of what she has done. The only type of imbalance that could exist is through not mentioning certain achievements or parts of her life that would be relevant. However, since I do not know enough about her, I can not evaluate the article in those terms. However, in the manner that I can evaluate the article, the article is well balanced and the tone is apporpriate for the goals wikipedia sets in terms of neutrality and encyclopedianess.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, everything is presented mater-of-factualy.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, no person opinons or anything similiar are mentioned.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the article I believe doesn't have enough content to necessarily be able overrepresent or underrepresent any of its content.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No such viewpoints exist or are mentioned in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuation is there, the content of the article is just reporting about her life's events and career which are all facts that can be verified.

Sources and References
Overall, the sources are a little outdated, but so seems to be the page of her employer. Newer one's, especially relating to her career and recent projects she has been working on should be added. The sources are also relatively sparse, consisting of only 8 sources. However, these sources are from relevant pages such as her employer NASA and the embassy of her nationality.
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All sentences have at least one citation, many have more, except one sentence.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not sure, I don't know much about the person, but judging that most sources are from 2019, I assume newer articles have been written which can be verified with a quick google search. Many of these newer articles seem to generally be about the same topics. However, some articles that are used as sources are from governmental sources and sources from Nasa (the place she works at).The Nasa site has however not been updated since Mar 18, 2021 which was when the page was "retrieved" or sourced.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not really, although the most recent ones are from 2021, most were written in 2019 or earlier. Thus, newer ones should be included, espcially since the content of the page seems to reflect her standing in NASA only as of 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Lots of the sources are by women. In addition, one of the article cited is specifically about Asian American women in the space industry.
 * 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.)
 * Yes, there are newer articles so the updated articles such as NASA's website are probably better sources than the ones used from 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links do work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

The organisation and quality of writing are good. They reflect the appropriate style of wikipedia's goals.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, its consise, easy to understand, straight forward.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes one, "After graduated from University of the Philippines," has a grammatical mistake.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is nicely broken downin different sections. The content page follows a chronological reading so its easy to follow and understand.

Images and Media
There are no images, yet one should be added of her to the leading section. Another possibility is in the content section describing the NASA projects she has been working on. This would help the reader see what shes been working on.
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images. These should be added, espeically one of her or her projects.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * n/a

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?
 * There are none.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is not rated. It is part of the smithsonian project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The talk page doesn't have any conversation and thus no indication of harassement or edit wars going on.

Overall, the page could use some more attention and be rated.

Overall impressions
Overall, this article is only in its beginning stages of being written. It hasn't recieved much attention and thus is out of date, lacking information, and lacking other accessories such as photos, links, etc....
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall status is fair, the main thing lacking is attention given to it.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Strengths are that it stays on task and is focused.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Aritcle could be improved by adding pictures, adding more details about the person's work projects, and being updated to a 2022 status.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Article is far from completion. It still needs to be developed to a fuller extend to include more infromation or links to topics relating to her work.

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

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this page because it was one of the few pages under the smithsonian project section for women in science. This page has connections to projects that being worked on in NASA and therefore would be important to anyone trying to learn about those projects, what specifically the person the article is about is working on, or if someone was doing research on women in NASA. My preliminary impression of the article was that it needed work because it was rather short.

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.)

This article has many strengths including the topics being discussed being outlined in an appropriate and clear form. The content is separated into sections that help the reader find the appropriate material they need, and in those sections, the content is given in a chronological layout, making the reading clear and understandable. In addition, the tone is appropriate and professional. This aritcles writing, diction, etc.. are all in line with the standards wikipedia asks for. However, the article hasn't recieved much attention. Therefore the article has become out of date in addition to having not a lot of detailed information. For example, the article could include some images such as a picture of the person this article is about. There are also more recent sources that could be used and cited.