User:Elizabeth Marcotte/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Susan Ackerman (neuroscientist)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because Susan Ackerman is a neuroscientist and geneticist, two fields I enjoy reading about. Additionally, I think it is important to read about women scientists as their role and voice are often overlooked. In all the science classes I have taken over the years, only one female scientist was mentioned as opposed to the countless males we studied, so I think it vital to hear about the contributions women make to science as they are both significant and many. This article seems to be a great introduction to current scientific research by Susan Ackerman.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

• Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the introductory sentence introduces Susan Ackerman as a neuroscientist and geneticist which is fitting as the article is about for contributions to these fields.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, the lead briefly mentions her career and major areas of research which are the main focus of the article; however, it fails to mention her education which is one short section of the article.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
  • Yes, some of the information about the various universities and labs she has worked at are only present in the lead section.
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise and informative.

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the focus is on Susan Ackerman's research and contributions to science.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There seems to be no out of place content, but perhaps the section of her research findings could be expanded.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • This article is important in addressing one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because it provides information on a significant female scientist. Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia and often in discussions science and its significant contributors.

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

• Is the article neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, the article is largely about her career and research projects.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
  • There does not seem to be any minority or fringe viewpoints described.
• 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?
  • Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, many of the sources are scholarly scientific publications and reports published in reliable, peer-reviewed journals.
• 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.)
  • No, most of the sources are from colleges Ackerman has worked with and scholarly scientific peer-reviewed articles.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization and writing quality

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Overall the article seems polished although I notice one or two errors with unnecessary commas.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The article has clear sections, but I think it might be a good idea to include a separate section or subsection about her career as opposed to lumping it in with the section on her research.

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No, there are no images.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • There are no images.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • There are no images.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • There are no images.

Talk page discussion

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • There are no conversations on the talk page.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This article is C class, and it is a part of the women scientists WikiProject.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • This article seems to differ because it does address a significant female scientist, a group often ignored both on Wikipedia and in other discussions of important scientific figures.

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • Overall, this is a good, clear article.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The article's strengths include the many scholarly scientific sources and clear, readable explanations of the topics of her research.
• How can the article be improved?
  • The article can be improved by creating a section for her career, separate from the section introducing her areas of research and by expanding the sections titled "other research". The article also needs more diverse sources written by third parties, outside of her own publications.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • The information the article presents is clear and informative, but more diverse third party sources are needed and it would be good to add more information about her more recent or current projects.