User:Kat.osborne/Evaluate an Article
Women in Science : (Women in science). As a woman in science I am evaluating this article because I am interested in the topic.
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: (link)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The Lead contains a concise and clear introductory statement that describes the topic of the article. The Lead is a little too overly detailed. For example, the first woman to win a Nobel Prize does not have to be mentioned in the Lead. Although the Lead does do a good job describing the articles major sections.
[edit]Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
The Content information is up-to-date and does a good job including all of the history that is a part of women in science. Every part of the Content is relevant to women in science.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
The article leads more to enhancing the role of women in science than it is taking a neutral standpoint. The article attempts to persuade the reader to support the continuation and growth of women in STEM.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
The sources are current and the view links that I clicked on seemed to work.
[edit]Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
The article is well organized, however, the history and statistics sections were a bit too long.
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
The images were done very nicely. They were well captioned and they enhanced the understanding of women in STEM topics by showing examples of women in STEM and also supplying visual statistics.
[edit]Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
The talk page includes more women that should be included, more areas of science that should be included, and different opinions on arrangements that could be used.
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
The overall status of this article is that it was very nicely done. The strengths include the wealth of knowledge and information that is presented on this page. Something that could be improved is the organization. Instead of organizing chronologically, it could be organized by science fields and contributions that females contributed to each.
[edit]Optional activity
[edit]- 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: