User:Latkegyoza/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: Rosalind Franklin
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • It was under one of the WikiProjects & I've heard of Rosalind Franklin for years.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes
• 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?
  • Lead is concise

Lead evaluation

Overall, I think the Lead does a good job.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Not that I can see
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes, it features a woman scientist.

Content evaluation

The content seems to be fine - it's relevant, up-to-date, relatively thorough and respectful in its discussion of a woman scientist.

Tone and Balance

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, the article seems neutral and not biased toward a position. It's not an article on a controversial political topic, so it's not really trying to persuade people of one side or the other.

Sources and References

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Most of the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary sources, though there are a few comments asking for more sources for date information. The sources are thorough, current, and seem relatively diverse. The links I checked worked.

Organization

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?

Organization evaluation

The article is well-written and well-organized.

Images and Media

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?

Images and media evaluation

The images are appropriate, enhance the article, and follow Wikipedia's rules.

Checking the talk page

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?

Talk page evaluation

One topic is on how to title the sexism experienced by Franklin, currently named "Allegations of sexism toward Franklin." It's clear that the editors are updating this frequently, as one conversation is about adding a July 2020 Nature editorial about her work to her Wikipedia.

The article is rated as B-class. It's part of several WikiProjects, including History of Science & Women scientists.

Overall impressions

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?

Overall evaluation

I think the article is pretty good overall and well-developed. It is concise and thorough. Perhaps it could benefit from adjusting some language in the Allegations of sexism toward Franklin section - I am not familiar with Wikipedia's standards, but I think it's pretty clear that Franklin did face sexism (i.e. "allegations" may be a weak word).

Optional activity

• 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: