User:Srosen12/Evaluate an Article

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

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.)

Evaluate the article

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does 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?
 * It includes a brief description of the main idea of the article, but not of each section.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, the lead doesn't include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article stays on topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I was originally thrown off by the fact that her last name changes. In the "Early Life and Education" page, she is referenced as McNulty, and then immediately in the following section, that changes to Antonelli. While it may be inferred, I think a simple sentence saying she changed her last name to her husband's would help to clarify the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article is about a woman in computer programming in the mid 1900's. The article mentions the severe lack of pay that she and her women coworkers were receiving. It also explains that the women who worked on the project were told to "act as waitresses" and "look good" during the project's launch.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The only claim that is opinionated is "they did not receive the recognition they deserved." However, based on the evidence that the women were treated horribly, this claim is valid.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, none of the viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No, none of the viewpoints are minority or fringe.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article attempts to make the claim that Antonelli was undervalued in her position by praising her for her accomplishments and then claiming that she did not get much credit for it.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. I went through most of the sources and all were reliable sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * One of the sources is very thorough, but it is also heavily biased. It makes many claims about gender inequality that likely are too controversial to be on Wikipedia. The author of the Wiki article uses this source for the one opinionated claim, that the women of ENIAC " did not receive the recognition they deserved."
 * Are the sources current?
 * Almost all of the sources are from 2010-now, which seems interesting to me because Antonelli did most of her work in the mid 20th century. However, this represents the lack of coverage on women, and she is now getting some of the recognition that she deserved years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, many sources by different authors were used to make this article. Some heavily emphasize the marginalized aspect of Antonelli's career.
 * 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.)
 * I couldn't find any sources that add any additional information to this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do work.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think the article is well-written. It includes lots of information about the project she was working on, her early life, and her legacy. It could have touched upon her being undervalued slightly more, based on all of the sources that I clicked through, but it is also important to not overdo it and make the article heavily biased.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The only one I could find would be changing "conveniency" to "convenience."
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is broken up into sections that aptly cover her career.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does include a couple of images that show Antonelli as well as the computer she was working on with her coworkers.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the images are well-captioned. However, one of them is not dated, which is interesting. There is a possibility of a mistake there or also it could be that we don't actually know the date of the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they all do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are laid out in a visually appealing way. All of them are next to the topic in the article closest to what the image describes. For example, the image of Antonelli working on the project is next to the "Computer Programmer" section.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * One editor explains on the talk page that they would like to include a topic of subroutines, which they have a long quote for. There is also speculation about the blueprints that the programmers used to work off of.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a B-rated article, part of WikiProject Women scientists, Women's history, Philadelphia, Computing / Software / Early / Hardware, and Science and Academia.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't talked about this specific article, but you can see the difficult task of being non-biased while also trying to show all of the information, which, in this case, is the underrepresentation and lack of appreciation for Kathleen Antonelli.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is B-rated, and contains much of the basic facts of what Antonelli's life and career was like, as well as major events.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article does a great job staying non-biased, as almost all of the sentences are fact-based, rather than opinionated.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think the possibility of including some of her coworkers in ENIAC and maybe including their accomplishments would shed light on Antonelli's accomplishments without having a biased point of view.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed.