User:ViennaGautrey/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nancy Kirk

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I determined that there were grammar mistakes in the first sentence, and would like to take time to review this article as it has lots of information on it, but appears to be relatively undeveloped.

Evaluate the article
* Note: this article review is of the article before I (Vienna Gautrey) edited it. (pre January 28, 2021)


 * The Lead sentence is concise and contains the right information, however, the lead paragraph could use some additional explanation of specific topics (graptolites) and some paring down of some sequential information that will be better outlined in the Education section of the article (it is not necessary in the first paragraph).
 * The Content of this article it relatively sparse as it is a new article. Keeping this in mind, the content that is there is relevant although the Field Work paragraph could be remastered overall and there could be more emphasis on the Awards section, the Personal Life and Legacy section, and the Research section.  The content in this article does represent an underrepresented group (women in STEM, more specifically Women in Geology).
 * The Tone and Balance of this article overall is sufficient, although there can be much improvement. A comment in the initial paragraph states that Nancy supported a Marxist ideology, I believe this should either be removed fully or reworded and put in the Personal Life section as it portrays a skewed initial representation and is not relevant in the first paragraph.  Another note I made was the wording of the sentence stating she had never been married.  This most likely had positive intentions, but struck me as an insinuative and potentially insulting, I changed this to a more neutral wording.  Other than these inequities the article appears unbiased and balanced in its viewpoint representation.
 * The Sources and References in this article are poorly executed. Most of the references connect to error pages, I have taken the liberty to find some of these sources, although there is much work to do.  The sources I did find have been clearly plagiarized (close paraphrasing) in the article and will have to be fully rewritten.  I cannot determine at this time whether most of the sources are reputable and in agreeance of each others facts due to the inability to access them, although the ones I do have access to appear to be just.
 * The Organization and Writing Quality is amateur and difficult to understand. Many grammar errors were made, and poor sentence structure was used.  The categorization of information is well done although there needs to be more information added.
 * Images and Media are absent in this article.
 * Talk page discussion is absent in this article. It has been rated a Stub-Class project and was created as a result of the Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment (the same project I am coming from one semester preceding me).
 * Overall the article is a new underdeveloped one which requires much work. It has managed to achieve portraying an unbiased viewpoint of the subject, but has lots of need for improvement in referencing and many other other aspects.