User:Stephanielynnmorris/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: Martha Schwartz
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I searched "women in Landscape Architecture", this is one of the articles that surfaced. At first I tried searched related to Texas but it didn't bring up much information regarding women in LA.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it describes her as "a an American landscape architect, artist, educator, author, and lecturer."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat, i think the only thing that doesn't delve into detail is the "lecturer" aspect and educator section is lacking as well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it is all there, just some things need more information in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? It seems moderately up to date, but in the recent works section, the most recent is 2015.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content belongs but the sections seem sparse and more information is needed to make concrete points.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it seems neutral, though only discussing her contributions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The content is pretty even.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, the main issue with this article is the lack of sources, really in the body paragraphs there are no citations. for the completed works. there are too many external links compared to verified sources (7:1). for her projects and installations listed there are no sources (or they are not cited directly)  This might be because they don't exist on a wikipedia page. But, even for each project, there is no source upfront.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The one source is from 1995. This seems appropriate, but it needs more.
 * Are the sources current? the only source is from 1995. but its current enough.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes the links are current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read and clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no it seem good in that regard.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes it is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It includes one image, it needs more.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not sure actually.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The one there is ok. It is right upfront in her introduction.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? small edits are being made in the view history tab.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Main issue are sources.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is informative, main issue is sources. I would add pictures
 * What are the article's strengths? short and concise. Hits the main points.
 * How can the article be improved? sources and up to date information needed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? it is well-developed to underdeveloped.

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: