User:WateryTuba/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Deepa Kumar
 * I chose Deepa Kumar as I was interesting in learning more about a scholar who studies the effects of Islamaphobia. And she got her PhD at UPitt!

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Mostly, yes. It's only focused on her writings -- it's more of "The writings of Deepa Kumar"
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * kind of
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * She's written a few articles since it was published that aren't mentioned on her page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * mostly, yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * not really, they called her analysis "sweeping" and said "her work has been spread around the world"
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * kind of -- most are from the early 2000s, but they're linked through academic sites
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked #8 and #10 and they both worked

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Some sentence fragments -- sentences starting with the word "But..." that aren't fully complete.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but again, it's just four sections on what she's written, nothing else.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * just her face.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes, they captioned her face.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Doubt it -- the person who posted it said "I created this work entirely by myself" but was most likely not the photographer.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I mean it looks like her yearbook photo,,,,,,so yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There needs to be a Criticism section according to the last post on there, but that's from 2016...
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * no rating, yes -- the Biography section
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * we haven't.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's spotty, but mostly remains neutral.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * great summaries of the four writings they chose to expand on.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding more -- criticisms, her work outside of those chosen writings, anything else about her.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * under-developed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: