User:12.35.54.5/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article[edit]
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Mary Church Terrell
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I have chosen to edit this article because when thinking of notable black women who I could recall, Mary Church Terrell stood out. However, the only notable thing I could remember about her was that she was one of the first black women to receive a college degree. Assuming that Terrell contributed more to the Civil Rights movement and the world of authorship and scholarship in general I wanted to dive deeper into her life. Her page is rated a C-Class article of Low-importance showing the lack of public knowledge about her major contributions.
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?
Lead evaluation[edit]
- Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
- The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
- The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
- The Lead is very concise.
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?
Content evaluation[edit]
- The article's content is relevant to the topic and mentions other names when they are in relation to Terrell. There is one section that talks about African-American voting rights that is not directly related to Terrell; however, I think it adds necessary background information for readers who may not have known about the voting issues that impacted African-Americans even after they legally gained the right the vote.
- The content is not that up to date because it does not include information on the push for a "Mary Church Terrell Day," which it could include in her legacy section.
- Yes, there is a good amount of content missing.
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?
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
- The article appears to be neutral.
- No, there are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
- There does not seem to be any viewpoints that are more represented than others. However, information about her personal life is quite limiting which appears to be the case of many notable black women which leads to the dehumanization of them, solely focusing on their career impacts.
- No, I do not think this article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Terrell's life, however, is full of positive and monumentally beneficial acts of good she performed, leaving room to believe she never stood for a controversial belief or did anything controversial. Although, this could be wrong.
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?
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
- All of the facts in the article are back up by reliable secondary sources of information.
- Yes the sources are thorough and range from books, to video sources, to articles, and journals.
- About half of the sources are from the 2000s and up and the others from after 1950, so I would say they are pretty current.
- Yes, the links checked work.
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?
Organization evaluation[edit]
- The article is well-written in terms of clarity and concisions.
- Yes the article has grammatical or spelling errors I corrected after reading the entirety of the page.
- The article is decently organized; however, the sections could be broken down even further.
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?
Images and media evaluation[edit]
- The article includes less than five images. This images add a face to the name although they do not enhance the understanding the topic beyond that.
- One image is well captioned with the artist's name, the other two are not.
- Yes the images do.
- The images are laid out well, but not necessarily visually appealing because they aren't including throughout the article, only on the right hand side.
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?
Talk page evaluation[edit]
- Some of the conversations happening on the talk page include
- This article is rated C-Class and is apart of several projects including Women's History and African diaspora.
- We have not talked about this topic about this topic in specific, but when we have talked about black women's articles on Wikipedia in general this page exhibits similar characteristics as many black women's pages do.
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?
Overall evaluation[edit]
- The article's overall status is good. There is room for improvement in the details. More dates, names, and organizations could be mentioned. I also think her relationship with other activists could be explored deeper than it is, especially with Anna Jane Cooper and Ida B. Wells, two activists who mention Terrell several times in their own writing.
- The article's strengths are in listing dates and her awards received.
- The article's reference to Terrell's relationships with people can be improved, and her beliefs can be improved. In other words, describing what she believed along with what she did and was able to accomplish because of said beliefs.
- The article is under and poorly developed.
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: