User:BatArieh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article is listed as a C-Class article both under WikiProject Deaf and WikiProject Education.

The topic is of concern to people studying the history of Deaf education.

On first read, the article seems lacking in detail and written in an informal tone.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section

• Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The introductory sentence is too concise, and could probably be combined with information from the second sentence to emphasize Gallaudet's work with deaf students.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, and more sections are also needed.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
  • Yes (the name of the school he established).
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Again, it looks too concise (missing information).

Content

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • I know of no information that is more up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • "Frederic Edwin Church was a notable pupil during this period." - following this link, it does not become clear of whom or where Church was a student, or his connection with Gallaudet.
  • "William Edgar Gallaudet graduated from Yale with a B.A. in 1815." - Probably too much information as his brother's education does not clearly play into Gallaudet's biography.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes. It highlights Deaf individuals' accomplishments. Example: "Massieu and Clerc... were both highly educated graduates of the school" and names them as two of the faculty members at Institution Nationale des Sourds-Muets à Paris.
  • Laurent Clerc is named alongside Gallaudet in the introductory paragraph as one of the co-founders of what became the American School for the Deaf.

Tone and Balance

• Is the article neutral?
  • Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No. Only Gallaudet's personal perspective of the educational/communication methods he observed in England and France.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
  • None given.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No.

Sources and References

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • No. There are MANY missing citations.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources that are listed appear thorough. Confirming so, however, would require a more in-depth search.
• Are the sources current?
  • Being the article is biographical, the sources appear up-to-date. More research would be needed to learn if any new, pertinent information has become available regarding Gallaudet.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • At least one source author, Jack Gannon, was Deaf. This name could have a hyperlink attached to lead to the Wikipedia article about this individual.
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
  • I need to do research to find out.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The "Tribute to Gallaudet..." link is broken (sources: Barnard, Henry).
  • "Life of Thomas Gallaudet..." link is broken (sources: Gallaudet, Edward Miner).
  • More links within the sources are broken.
• ALSO - some sources are not used as citations and may not be needed.

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • There are stylistic writing problems that make this article unclear and difficult to read in some areas.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There are a few grammatical errors.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The article could be much better organized. I suggest looking at other bibliographic Wikipedia articles to get a sense for how it should be structured.
  • The "Legacy" section, rather than listing Gallaudet's accomplishments, shows actions taken in his honor. This section could be renamed. A new section summarizing Gallaudet's accomplishments should replace this section.

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • The image of Sophia F. Gallaudet needs information added to explain that she was Gallaudet's wife.
  • ALSO - images need text descriptions entered under Edit: Alternative Text.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes.

Talk page discussion

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • Very little activity on the Talk page
  • A point about plagiarism seems to have been addressed.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • C-Class article both under WikiProject Deaf and WikiProject Education
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • I do not understand what is meant by "the way Wikipedia discusses this topic".

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • It almost seems this article should be rated as a "Start" article, matching the description, "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete."
• What are the article's strengths?
  • Neutral tone.
  • Positive representation of successful, Deaf individuals.
• How can the article be improved?
  • Reorganization.
  • Editting for clarity.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • This article appears underdeveloped.