User:XianSH/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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.

The lead gives a short summary of the central idea of the article with a concise explanation of the main achievement of Hannah English Williams. The lead doesn't contain unnecessary information that is not covered in the article. However, the lead doesn't have a brief description of the article's sections nor is it specific enough to give readers a thorough understanding of the topic.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The article's content is highly relevant to the topic however limited information is available. Considering the article is about a person from the 17th century, the content is up-to-date in terms of general information about the life and achievements of the person. To make the article more updated and comprehensive, subsections of early life, achievement, and recognition/significance can be added to the article. I recognize the fact that it is hard to trace back the life of a person born in the 17th century but it would be helpful to give more details about the unknown info. For instance, clearly states that the parent and birthplace of Hannah English Williams are unknown.

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.

The article is neutral. The article gives a brief summary of Hannah English Williams's personal life and career with facts. There is no viewpoint that is overrepresented or underrepresented but more detailed explanations/transitions between facts can be added to make the article flow better and more understandable to readers. For example, one focus of the article is Hannah English Williams's involvement in gathering plant and animal specimens for scientific collections. According to a source cited, letters between William and James Petiver give evidence about why, how, and what of Willam's participation, so it may be helpful to cite some quotes from the letter to add complexity and increase the credibility of the article. The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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.

Not all the facts are backed up by the reliable secondary source of information mainly because limited articles are available online. However, all of the cited sources are thorough in terms of giving an agreed and objective description of Hannah English Williams. The sources are not currently in the sense of their relevance to the modern world but it is currently in terms of the era of William. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and in different formats ranging from online articles to books. All the links work (clickable).
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

The writing is clear and and easy to read. There is no significant grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into sections and they reflect the most key aspects of biography of William.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
There is no pictures or images found on the article page. I suggest enrich the article by attaching images/pictures of William, her achievement or animals entitled using her name,
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There is no discussion on the talk page.

Overall impressions
The article's overall status is Start-Class, which means more information needs to be added to the article. The strength of the article is that it's highly objective in terms of its tone (word choice) and content focus. Regarding completeness, the article is not fully/well-developed. The article can be improved by collecting more information (sources) about William to provide more details about her personal life and achievements.
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or 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.