Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section. 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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? 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? Is the content up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? 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? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books. 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? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 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.) Check a few links. Do they work? 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? 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? Images and Media 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? Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of. 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? Overall impressions 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? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Kendall Demonstration Elementary School

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

I chose this article because it pertains to the elementary school located on Gallaudet University's campus. This school serves deaf students. The school was once segregated. I was interested in evaluated the article to see if it contained information about the court case and individual(s) involved with pushing for desegregation/integration of the school.

The articles primarily covers the school's history. This history mentions Miller v. the Board of Education of the District of Columbia in a single sentence, but there is no additional information about/linked article to this case, nor Louise B. Miller, the woman who prompted it. This case also preceded the Brown v. Board of Education court case, which ruled racially segregated schools unconstitutional, by two years. Prior to these cases, Plessy v. Ferguson allowed for facilities to keep races separate, provided that these facilities were "equal".

The article also has shorter sections devoted to Academics, Extracurriculars (only mentions athletics), Student Body, and Notable Alumni (only on person mentioned). This article is evaluated as low-importance and start class by two WikiProjects: WikiProject Shools and WikiProjects United States.

(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? Yes

• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, only two sentences

Content

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the article cites data from the past 5-10 years related to student body demographics, extracurricular activities (Gallaudet's Battle of the Books, NTID math competitions), and % of deaf staff members.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, see comment below.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Could be better: The article mentions the court case that led to the black students being educated separately on campus, but does not provide any additional context about the black deaf faculty and students. Additions should be made to the article about this case, and the woman who prompted it, Louise B. Miller. The article also glosses over when female students were first admitted. Talks around segregation and discrimination on the basis of sex without explicitly naming it.

Tone and Balance

• Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
• 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, some references are from the school itself (KDES), as well as the Laurent Clerc Center and Gallaudet, which could be perceived as having conflicts of interest.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? More research needed
• Are the sources current? Most references seem to be current, however there are some dating back as early as the 1970s and 1980s.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Some references authored by women included, at least one referenced work by a person of color
• 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.) Research needed.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Reference # 26 (Scott, Susanne; Simms, Laurene; Berlin Nussbaum, Debra (Spring 2004). "The "Why" and "How" of an ASL/English Bimodal Program"(PDF). The Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. Retrieved 5 November 2019.) does not work, so there may be others that need to be checked.

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? No
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only one image included
• Are images well-captioned? Vague caption: "Kendall School Division II marker". More information provided when a person clicks on the image (more than what is presented in the article itself: "A historic place marker indicating the former site of the Kendall School Division II for Negroes at what is now the Kellogg Conference Hotel on the campus of Gallaudet University. The plaque lists the names of the four black teachers hired, 23 students, and information on the court case which required the admission of black students to the institution (though still physically segregated on campus). The photo is taken facing (east by north)east. On the left is the Living and Learning Residence Hall. On the Right is the Peet Hall Dormitory.").
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Image captured/provided by Wikipedia editor, Wugapodes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Only one image, on the right hand side, within the section on History. Image is immediately below the

Talk Page Discussion

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations on the article's talk page
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as low-importance and start class by WikiProject Schools and WikiProject United States
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class Topic focuses mainly on the contributions of white, hearing, abled, rich, men.

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status? Start class
• What are the article's strengths? History dates back to 1856, and mentions several notable changes up through 2017
• How can the article be improved? Include more information about the school's history, even if it involves the describing school's allowance of racial segregation and discrimination on the basis of sex. Those pioneers who contributed to changing the school so people of color and women could attend should be mentioned.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is poorly developed in terms of the sections already included (Extracurriculars [sic], Academics, Student Body, Notable Alumni)