User:SamanthaDuong/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: (link) Constance Edith Fowler (Constance Edith Fowler)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It was the only article that appeared in the articles tab of the class page on wikied.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does not include an introductory sentence, however it does briefly state what Constance Edith Fowler did.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, includes Early Life and Education, Career, Critical Reception, among others.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead states that she was a printmaker, however the article does not include details about her printmaking or any specific pieces that she did in print.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * According to the references, there are some sources that are quite old dating back as far as 1934. However, there are also some that are from more recent years such as one from 2015.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * More content could be added to the Career section that could include what she did as an artist rather than focuses simply on her job as a teacher. In addition, under that section, it states that she died in 1996 which is not relevant in that context.

Content evaluation
There could be more details in each sections particularly the career section. There are some things that are not relevant under that section such as the fact that she suffered from a stroke and lived with her sister and passed away in 1996.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding question


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, however the critical reception only includes good reviews, which would not be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The statements under critical reception show that many people viewed her artwork to be very good which could be bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Since the viewpoints under that section are all good, it does not show the opinions of those that think her artwork is not as good.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, however by only including good reviews of her artwork, it does lead the reader to believe she was a good artist without showing her art.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Yes, it seems that all facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. Those include encyclopedias and a University archive. However, a lot of references are of The Capital Journal which would not be a reliable secondary source of information as it is from a periodical news source. The links for these sources work and lead to the appropriate place.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is concise and clear, it is not as detailed as one looking for information would like it to be. Although it is quite easy to read. The article has very few grammatical or spelling errors although I did catch that under Career, the word "gave" is misspelled as "garve". I think the article could be more well-organized, with separate sections for early life and education, and an additional section for occurrences from later on in her life. In addition, there should be separate sections that detail her teaching career and her career in making art.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes one image of Fowler painting. There are no other images, such as images of her artwork or even of her face that would give readers an idea of who she was. Images of her artwork would allow the reader to see what type of work she did and an image of her face would help the reader visualize who she was. There is no caption under the photo of her that says where the image was from or if it belonged to someone. It does not say when it was taken or where she was at the time.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are no conversations happening about how to present the topic. The article is rated C-class. It is part of several WikiProjects by Minnesota, Oregon, Visual Arts, Women Artists, Women Writers, Biography Arts and Entertainment.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article overall is not very detailed or well organized. There is some information included in sections that is not relevant and could be improved. The article's strength is that the Early Life and Education, and Career sections are written neutrally and unbiased. The organization could be improved by reorganizing the information and including more separate sections and details about her life as stated in the organization evaluation. The article feels underdeveloped, as it needs more information to be complete.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: