User:IntDesign22/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because I intend to improve upon it for my Fashion & Impressionism class assignment. Nina Callias was a woman of many talents and interests and successfully built a reputation for herself between famous composers, artists, models, critics, and more. I would like to highlight her life and how she reached that point in a more thorough way.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
Lead section
- Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Technically, there is no lead section established, but there is an opening statement.
- Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No
- Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
- No
- Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- There is no lead, this will need to be created and built from scratch for the most part
Content
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, but not very thorough
- Is the content up-to-date?
- The last time the article was edited was in December 2024, but most of the information in the piece was added between 2009 and 2018.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I think it is important that Nina’s adult life and career be dug into more. Her salons are mentioned, but not to the detail that is available through research, and her career as an artist and model is not touched upon as much as her career as a composer. I wouldn’t say that any of the content there presently needs to be removed, but more so reorganized.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Yes! The article gives an outlet to those who want to highlight women’s successes. Especially 19th century women. This is why it will be exciting to add even more info to her article and better represent her.
Tone and Balance
- 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?
- Again, I believe that everything touched on needs to be analyzed and expressed further. The information present is important, but there is much more information to be shared.
- Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
- There are no such views expressed
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Sources and References
- 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, I was able to locate all but two of them who’s links seem to have expired
- Are the sources current?
- For the most part. The available sources seem to have been published in the 1970s-2000s
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- A majority of the authors are women and the sources are books and encyclopedias about women of the 19th century. So if feel that is a good representation of the demographic.
- 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.)
- What’s nice about the sources used is that they all seem to be published books and encyclopedias. I was able to find a few articles and journals to add to the mix, so there are multiple source types.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Organization and writing quality
- 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?
- No
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- This is the article’s main issue. There are no specified sections for different topics. The topics are broken into paragraphs, but they are short and inconclusive.
Images and Media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The article has one Manet painting “The Lady with Fans, Portrait of Nina de Callias” by Manet, 1873.
- Are images well-captioned?
- No, the full title of the painting is not captioned, and the exterior link leads to an error page.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes, the image is public domain as stated by wikipedia
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, but I would like to include more
Talk page discussion
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- I do not see any conversations thus far.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated as Stub-Class, and is mainly only of high interest in Biography: Arts and Entertainment categories. I would like it if the article could move up in rank in the women writers, women’s history, and France categories as these are more specific and relevant.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- To me, the wikipedia article doesn’t tell enough of a story. I would like to display facts in a way that are clear, concise, and more conclusive. I don’t think that any one topic is only worthy of one sentence. There is more information to include and share about Nina’s life.
Overall impressions
- What is the article's overall status?
- For what the article has, it is accurate and written clearly, but it is short. The same goes for the articles of other languages. For the most part, they repeat themselves, may even be copy and pasted.
- What are the article's strengths?
- The information is written clearly and easy to understand with reputable sources.
- How can the article be improved?
- The article just needs more information, and would benefit from some reorganization.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is developed well, but very underdeveloped.