User:Tuday20/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?

Rediet Abebe, Ethiopian Computer Scientist

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because my Ethiopian background makes me more equipped to understand certain parts of her history. The article matters because women, especially Black women and those from other backgrounds are not highlighted as much in STEM news and history. My first impression of the article is that it is is a great foundation, but there could be more information about the social and technological implications of her work, and some of the writing could be more clear.

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 Section:

- Good and concise overview of the article, and everything in the first paragraph is mentioned again somewhere in the article in the future. However, it does not mention all of the key points that the rest of the article mentions. It could be slightly more detailed.

Content:

- The content is relevant, but there may be some things that could be updated since she is an active professor and academic. There is nothing obviously missing, however there is limited information about her personal life but that may be due to a lack of available information (which may be a personal choice by Abebe). This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but does a good job of highlighting her background and equity related contributions. There should be more detail regarding her awards and bigger endeavors.

Tone and Balance:

- Generally the article is neutral and more fact-based. There are not any major signs of bias or over/underrepresented viewpoints. It will be something to be mindful of when adding more details about her equity based impact in STEM.

Sources and References:

- The citations are from reliable sources such as directly from University websites or the websites of award distributors. The links work, both in the citations and in-text.

Organization and Writing Quality

- The writing quality is great but could be more clear in some cases. The organization is good but it could use perhaps one more subsection or more details in the ones it already has. No obvious grammatical or spelling errors at this point.

Images and Media:

- There could be more images related to her technological work, also, the primary photo of her should be more centered (such as a headshot) to actually highlight her rather than it being mostly background.

Talk Page:

- Talk page accuses the article of being a "puff piece" because of her relative lack of highly influential citations and the fact the page was created before she was a professor. However, that was in 2020 and since Abebe is actually a professor now, and presumably has more citations than she did then, that comment doesn't seem to be as relevant. It is listed as a C class article.

Overall:

- The article is a great foundation and encompasses various parts of Abebe's life. However, certain elements of her projects could be described better, and the images could be improved.