User:Kensy likes to edit sometimes/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: (link) Ellen Prince
I chose this article because of the lack of information on female linguists. Males are usually given more credit, so I find it interesting to do research on the underdogs.

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?
- There are no other major sections in the article. The lead holds the content for the entire article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, as the lead is the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- While it is slightly more detailed than a lead should be, the information provided is too sparse to create any additional sections.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes.
Is the content up-to-date?
- It seems to be. The article discusses main points of Prince's life until death.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- It would be interesting for information about where she gained her passion for Yiddish came from, and to know the specific topics that she lectured over at each university.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- It does not seem so.
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?
- Not at all. The article was purely fact-based.

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.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes. In fact, it may be a bit too short. Whether this is because of a lack of information about the person, or just a lack of edits on the page, the article is incredibly short, yet holds quite a bit of crucial information.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are a couple, but very few.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Somewhat? The paragraphs are split into sections.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There was talk about how Prince died and about how to present more of her works, since the list provided originally was short.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated as "start-class", and is part of two WikiProjects: Women and Biography.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- It's fairly similar. The article is much more neutral about Prince, though.

What is the article's overall status?
- It's a fairly good article, just short.
What are the article's strengths?
- It is very factual and neutral in tone.
How can the article be improved?
- It could contain a bit more information.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- It is slightly underdeveloped due to a lack of content.

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 — ~~~~