User:Tuday20/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Rediet Abebe, Ethiopian Computer Scientist

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because my Ethiopian background makes me more equipped to understand certain parts of her history. The article matters because women, especially Black women and those from other backgrounds are not highlighted as much in STEM news and history. My first impression of the article is that it is is a great foundation, but there could be more information about the social and technological implications of her work, and some of the writing could be more clear.

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:

- Good and concise overview of the article, and everything in the first paragraph is mentioned again somewhere in the article in the future. However, it does not mention all of the key points that the rest of the article mentions. It could be slightly more detailed.

Content:

- The content is relevant, but there may be some things that could be updated since she is an active professor and academic. There is nothing obviously missing, however there is limited information about her personal life but that may be due to a lack of available information (which may be a personal choice by Abebe). This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but does a good job of highlighting her background and equity related contributions. There should be more detail regarding her awards and bigger endeavors.

Tone and Balance:

- Generally the article is neutral and more fact-based. There are not any major signs of bias or over/underrepresented viewpoints. It will be something to be mindful of when adding more details about her equity based impact in STEM.

Sources and References:

- The citations are from reliable sources such as directly from University websites or the websites of award distributors. The links work, both in the citations and in-text.

Organization and Writing Quality

- The writing quality is great but could be more clear in some cases. The organization is good but it could use perhaps one more subsection or more details in the ones it already has. No obvious grammatical or spelling errors at this point.

Images and Media:

- There could be more images related to her technological work, also, the primary photo of her should be more centered (such as a headshot) to actually highlight her rather than it being mostly background.

Talk Page:

- Talk page accuses the article of being a "puff piece" because of her relative lack of highly influential citations and the fact the page was created before she was a professor. However, that was in 2020 and since Abebe is actually a professor now, and presumably has more citations than she did then, that comment doesn't seem to be as relevant. It is listed as a C class article.

Overall:

- The article is a great foundation and encompasses various parts of Abebe's life. However, certain elements of her projects could be described better, and the images could be improved.