User:Coldbrewbean/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: Feminist technoscience
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because it covers knowledge that is within the scope of this course and potentially could be expanded.
Lead
[edit]- Lead evaluation
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence clearly describes that the article is about the feminist critique of how science and technology is intertwined with gender.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does not include a brief description of its' major sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the Lead sticks to the scope of the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise, but contains some detail.
Content
[edit]- Content evaluation
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article's content doesn't stray from the topic of the article.
- Is the content up-to-date? The content appears to be regularly edited by users.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content that could be added to expand the article, with how expansive technology is in today's society there is more knowledge on this topic available to be analyzed.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Tone and balance evaluation
- Is the article neutral? The article uses neutral language and doesn't present a particular bias.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, information is presented neutrally and doesn't contain any heavy bias.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article doesn't attempt to persuade it just presents information.
Sources and References
[edit]- Sources and references evaluation
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article contains many sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They offer further readings on the topic, but could stand to offer more and possibly add media to the article.
- Are the sources current? Yes, the notes reflect current sources.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.
Organization
[edit]- Organization evaluation
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is concise and easy to follow.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I could not find 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 could stand to be broken down into further sections and include more information.
Images and Media
[edit]- Images and media evaluation
There is no media on this Wikipedia article.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Talk page evaluation
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page has conversations about sources and credibility as well as maintaining a neutral unbiased tone.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is apart of a WikiProject Feminism, a WikiProject Technology, WikiProject Women Scientists, and WikiProject Women's History.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia doesn't cover the notions of abolition and using technology as a tool that we talk about in class.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Overall evaluation
- What is the article's overall status? The article was well composed, but underdeveloped.
- What are the article's strengths? The article has a lot of sources, a strong introduction, and a good history that could again be lengthened.
- How can the article be improved? More information and sections could be added.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article has been well written, but more could be added.
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: