User:KaelaWilbur/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Wendy Wilbur
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Wendy Wilbur is my aunt and the page for her doesn't have a lot of info on it.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, although the info is out of date.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Needs to be updated.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? No, doesn't have her later work.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing her being inducted into the UMass Hall of Fame
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Sort of. As a female athlete she probably gets less coverage than her male counterparts, but also she is a straight, white woman so she still is probably more developed than others.

Needs work.

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? No.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Neutral

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.
Are the sources current? Yes.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not relevant to this article.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Good

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Concise, but needs more work.
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? None yet.

Short but organized.

Missing images

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations or if there were they have been removed since she is living.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a stub and is part of the Biography Wikiproject
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Empty

What is the article's overall status? Stub.
What are the article's strengths? All the facts are cited, neutral pov.
How can the article be improved? Add more recent information.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped.

Underdeveloped

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 — ~~~~