User:Willow44/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anne McLaren

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I selected this article to review because I was drawn to Anne McLaren, a figure of inspiration for women, and personally significant to me due to her pioneering work in fertility- a field I aspire to enter, following medical school. I chose this article to edit because I feel that there us oversight in capturing McLaren's profound contributions to advancing women in science and her remarkable selfless achievements throughout her life.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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?
 * No, the lead does not include any information on her early life.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No but barely touches or doesn't touch at all on most information in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise but does not provide enough information about what readers will see in the rest of the article.

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?
 * Most of it but some information is redundant or extraneous - not important enough to be included.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, Anne McLaren died in 2007 and updates were made within the last year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, the way her death is discussed is unclear and there is information missing about her legacy and work in ethics discussions.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes she was a pioneer for women in developmental biology, however I would like to expand on this more if I can find reliable sources.

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, because this is a biography of sorts, most of this information is not up for debate.
 * 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?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * 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.)
 * yes for some, however many are fine and quality sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * the Oxford Dictionary National Biography link does not work but many others do

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?
 * The death section is unclear and strangely worded. In addition, may of the abbreviations are hard to understand and do not have easy to understand context clues (therefore they should be clarified).
 * Early career and middle life section are joined in one section. Could be clearer if separated.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No it might be a good idea to break apart and reorganize her career and middle life section.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No but it is a biography so I am not sure that it is needed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the only image is a portrait of Anne McLaren with a brief explanation of her and her life (I would say it is well captioned).
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Only one image at the beginning of the article.

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?
 * NA
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated C class
 * apart of wiki projects including Women in Red, University of Oxford, Women's History, Women Scientists.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class
 * Anne McLaren has not been discussed in great detail in class however she deserves recognition for what she has done.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article needs improvement in organization, content, and specifications, however does an excellent job providing thorough and clear sources with mostly working links.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The articles strengths include both the sources and the extensive research into her obituary.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article should provide more information on her research, what her research contributed to and what legacy she left, improvements in professional writing (less slang), and extreme improvements in organization.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is underdeveloped. It has honest facts however they are scattered, disorganized, and not thorough. The article does not provide enough correct or thorough information for it to be considered even poorly developed.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.