User:Gsinghubc/Evaluate an 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.

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?

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?
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.

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.

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

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?

Overall impressions

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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Cora Taylor Casselman

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.)

Cora Casselman was one of nine female delegates to the San Francisco Conference discussed in the first HIST 432 Lecture. I chose this article because whilst researching her for the assigned group activity, I noticed that the Wikipedia article on her was sparse in information in comparison to other sources and did not mention many of her significant contributions. A fact missed is that she was the only woman in the Canadian delegation sent to the San Francisco conference, which created the United Nations Charter. She also remained active in federal and provincial politics and political organizations throughout her life. Noting her contributions is pertinent to conversations about the influences of women and feminism in the creation of the United Nations^[1], and female politicians in Alberta and Canada.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead sentence is concise and accurate. There are no major sections within the article, and thus they are not mentioned in the lead sentence.
There are gaps in content:
- Article does not mention she was first liberal woman elected to parliament, which is a significant fact of interest in regards to Cora Casselman.
The article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps in regards to the oft-ignored role of women in shaping many political institutions. However, the tone and balance of the article attempts to minimize and ignore Cora Casselman's achievements.
- Casselman being one of seven delegates from Canada sent to the United Nations is a fact missing mention, and her being part of the Canadian delegation is a small afterthought in a paragraph, rather than a significant and highly relevant achievement that could be mentioned earlier in the article.
- The article mentions her being speaker in the House of Commons albeit temporarily, however a balanced view would also include her role in several parliamentary committees.
- The article's choice of words in Casselman "succeeding her late husband" is not untrue. However, by choosing to not mention that she had won the byelection against other candidates, it insinuated that Casselman did not win an election but rather 'succeeded' a position attained by her late husband.
The writing structure is clear and easy to read. However, it can be better summarized by dividing her contributions and adding more information. Possibly a section each on involvement in Albertan provincial politics, federal politics, and role in the Canadian delegation to the San Francisco Conference.
The sources include a press article from the Ottawa citizen, although it is appropriate in that it announces and is used to confirm her election. The article needs more, and better sources to provide evidence to the many facts written about Casselman that are not cited.
The only media used is a 1941 portrait of her. There are clearer, more visually appealing images of her available online. However, they are copyrighted by the Provincial Archives of Alberta.
The Talk Page in recent includes little more than image improvements and additions to other relevant categories on Wikipedia.
My general impression is that although information about Cora Casselman is not widespread, there can be more use of well-cited details about her that are presented in a neutral tone. Although, the article presents some major facts of interest, they are not cited, and other significant facts of interest are neglected. The article could use more development.
Article

^ Marino, Katherine (2021-07-28). Adami, Rebecca (ed.). Women and the UN: A New History of Women's International Human Rights (1 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 8. doi:10.4324/9781003036708. ISBN 978-1-003-03670-8.

[1] Marino, Katherine (2021-07-28). Adami, Rebecca (ed.). Women and the UN: A New History of Women's International Human Rights (1 ed.). London: Routledge. p. 8. doi:10.4324/9781003036708. ISBN 978-1-003-03670-8.

[1]