User:Sarahadkins001/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)African-American women's suffrage movement
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is relevant to the main focus of our class, and to the main focus of Professor Jones book Vanguard, because it provides an overview of African American women's role in women's suffrage.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Somewhat. From reading the first sentence one can get a general sense of what the topic is about but I feel like it is a little too vague and could be better used later in the article where it would have more context. The current first sentence seems like it could be used as the intro for many similar topics and doesn't tell readers exactly what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes the Lead offers a brief sentence summarizing the major points a reader would expect to hear about and which are further explored later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the Lead suggests there will be information regarding African American suffrage efforts after the passage of the 19th Amendment but the article only talks about voter suppression not how such was challenged. The Lead also suggests that the article will provide information up to the 1960's which is does not as it barely describes the period shortly after the 19th amendment was ratified.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overall, it is concise but it is misleading so the conciseness doesn't really matter.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is not that great. The opening sentence doesn't offer a great introduction to the article and the Lead as a whole suggests that the article will provide it's reader with more information than it does.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. Nothing strays far from the topic at hand. However, it does seem to be repetitive at times, specifically when talking about the racial split which occurred in the women's suffrage movement which takes away from the article and makes it harder to read.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes overall, however, some of the information, mainly about the dates of historic events, is lacking reference material so it is hard to make a solid judgment without that knowledge being supplied.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In the section, Marginalizing African American Women, the last paragraph dives into the individual story of one of the mention suffragettes without and need or introduction. It seems very out of place and takes away from the legitimacy of the whole article. Also the information regarding African American women's efforts up through the 1960's is missing and overall the text feels very repetitive.

Content evaluation
Not completely bad but pretty lack luster. I feel like this article was approached the wrong way and while it does offer some useful information it format and layout leaves a lot to be desired.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, it seems to be presenting a villain vs. hero dynamic in the way it takes about the black/white split in the women's right movement. Whether this is justified or not it is not neutral which hurts the articles legitimacy.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No overt claims just the tone seems to be a little dramatized.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No just a general lack of information.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No overtly the tone just seems to be dramatized which makes the article read more like a story than fact,

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems balanced in the content it provides. Overall, more information is needed so it is again hard to make a solid judgment on the balance of information in the article. The tone again sounds very dramatized which harms the legitimacy of the article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Mostly, but some information, specifically dates, are lacking reference material. The article prompts readers for input in this regard.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all references appear to come from reputable journals and no primary sources are cited indicating a lack of original research which is positive. There are also quiet a few sources all of which are related to the overall topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part yes, however, the article is very 90's heavy in it's sources. Since this article focuses on a broad topic which happened a long time ago this doesn't seem to be a huge issue, however, a more modern ratio of sources may help legitimize the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links do work, however, some references do not seem to have links which is problematic because it prevents readers from fact checking information and checking sources legitimacy with minimal effort which undermines the point of a Wikipedia article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Not really. The lead section for one is pretty misleading and the high volume of repetition takes away from the article. If someone with no background knowledge on this subject were to read with article i don't think they would get much out of it or want to continue reading it for very long. It just doesn't seem to flow right and a lot of information could be cut, added, and rearranged.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * As far as I can tell no which is a positive.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, again in this aspect the article just doesn't flow right. The titles, which accurate don't seem very distinct and I feel like a reader might as well have read all the content in one large piece since they probably would get the same out of it either way.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Not at all. There is only one picture and that is the women's sex symbol which could indicate that the articles involves anything dealing with women. There are no images that aid understanding or make the subject matter stand out.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No. There is only one image and it is not captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, it says so when you click on it.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No because there is only one.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are none. The only information listed is presenting the article as having low importance to the project which created it.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of the WikiProject Women's History and is rated as start-class and low-importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is no real conversation going on in the talk page so no real comparison can be made except the very basic fact that we talked about the subject in class and no one is on this talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * There are no warnings or anything on this article but I personally would rank it as low quality for it's lack of information and poor layout. A lot of work could be done on this page especially given the importance of this topic.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It cites strong sources and lays out factual information. A reader won't read this article and walk away with no/wrong information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information and sections need to be added. The wording of the overall article needs to be edited so it is an easier/ better read. Irrelevant and repeated information needs to be removed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is a mix between under and poorly developed. It is not a bad start for an article but what it already contains needs to be edited not just supplemented.

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: