User:Uclastudent2021/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Favianna Rodriguez

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because she is a Chicana Artist, which is the focus of the course. This is a good example to what my wikipedia page should eventually look like on my artist. This wikipedia page matters because she is an artist and activist who may not be getting recognized in other platforms for her work. I really enjoyed the organization of the page and the flow of the article because it made sense when reading it. It was a great read.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article was very concise and to the point. The first sentence begins by describing who Favianna Rodriguez is. The following statements provide an overview of what type of work she does and all of it was covered in the following sections. The page also did a great job at balancing the content. Each section included was relevant to the visual artist. I did notice that the awards section may need to be updated since her last award or honor was received in 2012. I am not entirely sure whether the information is up to date since I am not the most familiar with Favianna, but it seems like there could be new updates. For example, the "Projects" section states that her most recent project was in 2018, but she may be working on something else now (2021). Overall, each topic was discussed about and the topics were all relevant because they centered on her being an artist and activist. The tone of the wikipedia page is neutral. I believe the the author(s) did a great job at reporting the activist views of Favianna without ever offering their own. I did resonate and connect with Favianna's work in activism, but I never felt like it came from the writer(s)' word choice because their word choice and summaries were neutral. The writer(s) did a great job at including the sources for every piece of information. However, some of the links are leading to a page that is no longer available so they should be updated. For the most part the sources seem to be coming from news articles or blog posts, but that makes sense because sometimes there is not a lot of peer-reviewed published work on artists like the one I have selected. Overall, the information appears accurate. The overall organization of the article is great. It flows very well and was easy to read. I did not see any major mistakes. The page did have one picture of the artist. It was well-placed and did not interfere with the understanding of the text. It is well-captioned and helps put a face to the artist. This article is rated "start-class" in three wikiprojsects, and "low-importance" in one of the three. There is not much conversation in the talk page except that the writer(s) should reread the sources to make the information more concise. Overall, the article was great. It provided me with information that I expected and the information was very easy to digest. I think finding more peer-reviewed sources and updating the references would be helpful.