User:Samantha Gould/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.


 * Phillis Wheatley
 * I chose this article because her name appears on the list of Wikipedia Editing Projects for this class and she was mentioned in the first chapters of Vanguard as an 18th-century poet, which I found interesting. I knew nothing else about her, so I thought the opportunity to read her Wikipedia page would be interesting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The first sentence of the lead does concisely and clearly describe the article's topic (Phillis Wheatley as an African American poet), but some editors in the Talk section have contended that it is actually factually incorrect (she was the second published African American poet, not the first). Besides that, the lead captures the key details of the article without too much or too little detail. However, it does not closely mirror or introduce the article's major sections, though that may be because of problems with the structure of the rest of the page and not the lead itself. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article, though it provides a clearer explanation of her later life than the later life section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Overall, the information included in the article is relevant to Wheatley's life, though I have the sense that the page could be helpfully fleshed out with more information about her poetry, its style, and a clear list of what works of hers have been published. Given the fact that she lived in the 18th century, I find it unlikely that the content is not up-to-date, but it is possible that historians have recently learned more about her life, or that she has been recently honored in a new way. In the History tab, it appears that authors have recently been updating her page with more honors, so that section is likely still current.

In the "Style, structure, and influences on poetry" section, there appears to be a sentence that does not fit with the current text (beginning with "This poem is arranged").

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article throughout appears neutral to me. Opinions on Wheatley's poetry are clearly attributed to their authors, and the article includes a range of different commentator's reactions to her. These opinions are primarily positive, though not entirely. However the "Style, structure, and influences on poetry" section does draw solely on the analysis of Wheatley's poetry by John C. Shields, which is likely too limited. It would be helpful to add to this section with other analyst's thoughts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
The article contains a number of citations, which appear to cover the majority of the information in the article. There is only one place where other editors have noted "citation needed," and there are 45 sources listed in the references section. Without having studied Wheatley's life and work myself, it is difficult to say for certain whether the sources include all relevant literature available today, but the references do appear to span a variety of authors and publishers. Sources from both the 18th and 21st centuries are included. It does appear that at least one link (#37: "George Washington to Phyllis Wheatley") is not currently working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
I found the organization to be confusing and frustrating to read. Though the headings seem helpful and relevant, the information contained within those sections does not clearly match the headings. There is no clear list of what all of Wheatley's work has been published, and what information there is on her writings is split up between "Other Writings" and "Poetry" (which appear in that order, confusingly). The article includes lots of information about how her work has been received, from her contemporaries to today, but that information is spread throughout the article.

This article would benefit from reorganizing the information to be much more concise (information about the course of her later life and her travels to England is included multiple times) and accurately sorting the information into the existing headings.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does include some images, though they are limited due to Wheatley having lived in the 18th century. They all have clear, concise captions and links to their sources. Because there are only 4 images, they do not overcrowd the page or distract from the text; rather, they are just enough to break up the longer text sections.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated B-Class and is apparently connected to a variety of WikiProjects. The Talk section is primarily focused on discrepancies over dates in Wheatley's life and minor details about other historical figures mentioned in passing, rather than on the organization or broader content of the article. As I noted above, editors are in disagreement over whether the first sentence of the lead is correct.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
This article has lots of important and relevant information, and it provides a useful overview of Wheatley's life, minor inconsistencies in dates aside. However, the organization is lacking, and the article could be made much more succinct and easy-to-understand were it to be reorganized. I would also appreciate a clearer list of what of/when her work has been published and more analysis of her poetry.

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: