User:Sek124/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Winnie Madikizela-Mandela - Wikipedia

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 found it interesting how Winnie Madikizela-Mandela's article is only C rated while her husband's article has a FA rating, the best Wikipedia can grant. This goes to show how often the female counterparts of male figures, especially spouses get overlooked and I want to help shed light on her important contributions in a respectful and academic way.

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.)

Lead Section

The lead sentence is quite wordy just due to the fact that she has a few different names she has gone by in her life. It makes it less concise, and I wonder if there is a way to include that information at a later date to get a clearer understanding of her contributions. However, to many people name could be a vital aspect of their identity so maybe this is standard practice for Wikipedia. The Lead section as a whole is 4 paragraphs long, longer than any of the individual sections in the article. There is information referenced in this section that isn't included elsewhere in the article such as details about her early childhood, details that would be better suited under the Early Life and Education section. Additionally, the last paragraph of the lead section does not flow and seems irrelevant compared to the other things mentioned in the section. It does not accurately give an overview proportional to the entire article.

*** The Lead does not provide an accurate summary of the entire article and all of the sections that follow.

Content

Much of the content is relevant and detailed, however its placement makes the timeline of her life and similar details hard to follow. For instance, In the marriage to Nelson Mandela section the last paragraph talks about an unrelated lawsuit that should not be included in this section. There are numerous times when facts that are important are not situated in the correct category or splayed together with many other facts which makes the content hard to digest.

Tone and Balance

Overall, I would say that tone and balance is one strength this article has as a whole. Although it does not remain entirely neutral in the views of Madikizela-Mandela, the article does present a balance of both the negative attributions of Mandela (criminal charges, lawsuits, wrongdoings) as well as some of her activist achievements for anti-aparteid. The sections regarding legal problems and criminal proceedings does occupy a larger amount of the article than her awards and role in politics, however as a whole the article provides both sides of the topic.

Sources and References

For the most part the article provides a source for every new fact introduced, however in the Early life and Education section there is one source titled, "failed verification." I also analyzed some of the sources when the article seemed to make bold claims (such as Madikizela was primarily responsible for the divorce) I corroborated with the source and in fact the source was making these claims. This demonstrates that the editor limited there own opinions and instead outsourced.

Organization and writing quality

Many of the sentence could be more concise and information is restated or irrelevant. For instance, in the marriage section, it lacks flow and understanding of the timeline of the marriage. Additionally, in the Early Life section, the sentences about Madikizela-Mandela's parents are run on and redundant and could be condensed into a single more developed sentence. Throughout the article tends to lack a sophisticated tone and academic style.

Images and Media

The article features very little media, 3 images in the entire article as compared with many more in her husband Nelson Mandela's Wikipedia page. The images that are there seem appropriately laid out and captioned, however some of them don't seem to enhance the section they belong in. For instance, the second image of Madikizela-Mandela with a group is unrelated to the content of the section (Transition to Democracy) it falls under. It presents new information and people she interacted with not found elsewhere in the article.

Talk page discussion

One large theme in the talk page is that the article misrepresents Madikizela and does in fact have bias towards emphasizing her criminality. Many argued that some of the language used such as "fraudster" was not neutral and thus has since been removed. Others argued similarly, however cited that more should be added regarding her activist contributions to help balance the article. A few other comments agreed with themes I was noticing that there were some topics that were underdeveloped and should be expanded upon. The article is rated C and of top importance to Wikiprojects such as Africa, South Africa, Human Rights and Women's History.

Overall impression

In my opinion, the largest thing that needs improvement in this article is the flow/organization of the sentences. The content described in each does not necessarily fall into the headlines and the information tends to jump around in topic. The article is strong in showing both sides of Madikizela-Mandela's morality (both the activist work as well as criminal pursuits/lawsuits. However, it takes a comprehensive yet concise lead that summarizes the contents of the article.

Feedback

Hello! I am a college student who is working to evaluate articles in Wikipedia. Upon reviewing the article and the guidance Wikipedia puts out for evaluating articles, I am recommending that the lead section be revised for this article. Although it provides a lot of comprehensive information, it does not accurately reflect and summarize all of the contents of the article. According to Wikipedia the lead section should provide a brief description of the various sections of the article and not provide information that is not present elsewhere in the article. Madikizela-Mandela's article goes against both of these things and does not provide an overview of her both negative and positive contributions. Additionally, details regarding both her personal life and criminal proceedings are discussed in the lead section that aren't mentioned later in the article (her own children and the murder of Stompie Seipi). I just think she is a really prominent female political and social leader, and her lead should concisely reflect what is described later in the article and would benefit from being revised for clarity.