User:Tkong22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Angelique EagleWoman

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 chose this article, because I wanted to learn more about Native American culture, and learning about Angelique EagleWoman seemed like a good way to do so. My initial impression of the article is that it is well organized, and has several distinctive subtopics. Also, it cited 15 different sources, which added to the credibility of the article. However, there is not much

Lead Section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes; describes briefly who EagleWoman is, and the things that she is known for
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes; although all information in the article is pertinent to the topic, some information are placed under the wrong subsections.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes. Angelique Eaglewoman is a citizen of a Native American tribe, who is a law professor and a scholar.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No; while most sources are reliable, one of the sources is a blog post on "ContractsProfBlog," which contains an article written by a non professional writer
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Mostly; there are some newer sources available
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes; most sources are from 3-5 years ago, and there is not much newer sources
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * 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.)
 * No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes; incorrect punctuation usages (quotation marks)
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C- class
 * WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia
 * WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Education
 * WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America / Anishinaabe
 * WikiProject Higher education
 * WikiProject Women

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a solid amount of information and research about Eaglewoman
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The way that the article is organized; some information feels out of place, and could be rearranged to allow for a better flow of the article
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped; while it hits most of the broad categories, it does not go in depth in a lot of the topics. This may be due to a lack of resources.