User:Tamia1222/Evaluate an Article

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

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 randomly chose this article to get an idea of how to properly evaluate an article. I do however have interests in the field of Computer Science and analytics; it's one of my minors along with math, both associated with my degree in physics. It was inspiring to see the reach of a black woman in STEM, she literally defied all odds especially considering the struggle of Black Americans and racism.

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.)

The article on Dr. Marsha Rhea Williams was overall a well formatted, easy to understand article. There was nothing distracting about the article although I'd hope there was a visual aid. There is however a visual reference. From what I observed the information that was reported because it was a biography was up to date. I would liked to have seen a portion of the article about her advocacy for greater minorities in STEM fields and a list of all affiliated organizations and publications. This article overall was very neutral. There were no biases or claims that I could identify. The author was simply reporting the facts. The link to the reference material and citation links are functional. One of the sources was a news article/ journal  that holds some biases, and the article doesn't draw from the biases but presents the facts. The opinions are backed with facts however in the original article. The sources were of a diverse set. I may be biased in my own views but I love that the article highlighted her accomplishments. This is a C-Class wikipedia article and on the scale of low importance. There isn't much conversation in the talk page, just a few minor corrections to things like dates. Overall I would say this article was well-written and free of biases. It was a great article.