Talk:Sarah Eno

Evaluation of Article Lead Section

The lead section in this article is very weak. It does include her name, occupation, and some of the projects she has worked on. Although there is no reference to the lead sections of the page. The lead section is not overly detailed and contains no brief overview as to what the section might include. This section also includes information that is no mentioned again in the article. It talks about the various projects she has worked on and where she currently teaches today, but her projects are never mentioned again, and her "Education and Career" section does not include anything about her present day job.

Content

Some of the articles content is relevant, but it is very minimal. I think that it is off to a good start introducing some facts about her life, projects, and what she has gotten recognized for. Although, it need sot be expanded upon and much more detail needs to be added. I am unsure if all of the information is up to date considering the most recent information about Sarah is 2014. There is lots of content missing. In the "contents" box on the page there are sections labeled "education and career" "recognition" "references" and "external links". More sections could be added or current sections could be expanded upon. For example education and career could be separated. A "projects" or "published works" section could be added. This article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. There is no mention of underrepresented topics or populations.

Tone and Balance

The article appears to be fairly neutral. I would say their viewpoints are underrepresented and not mentioned at all. There appears to be no persuasion on this article. The article is not biased towards one group or another. With regards to the information that is present on the article it appears to be neutral facts and material about her life.

Sources and resources

The first reference is reliable. It is a link to the University of Maryland's website and a brief description on Sarah and how she works in the physics department. I do not believe the second reference is reliable because once you click on it it takes you to a PDF on a separate page. I do not know who contributed to this PDF, if there is an author, if people have reviewed it. There is no way to tell whether the information on the PDF is accurate or not therefore it is not reliable. The third source appears to be reliable. Sarah has received multiple awards and this is a link to the website of the Fellow of the American Physical Society. When first entering the site it has a list of names and all of the people who are APS fellows. The fourth link is similar to the third link. Sarah is also a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Once clicked on the reference it takes you to the American Association for the Advancement of Science fellows page. This reference is an "org" and does appear to be reliable.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is not clear and professional. It appears to be very unorganized, there is not flow of information. It does not seem to be in any kind of order.

Images and Media

There are no images included in this article. There should be at least an up to date photo of Sarah on the page.

Talk page discussion

There appears to be no conversation going on in the talk page. When I clicked on the talk page, there was a rating of the article (Start - Class, Low Importance).

Overall Impressions

My overall impression of the article is that there is very little information on Sarah included in the article. Although she is not a particularly famous physicist, there could be more information added about her. The article also could be organized better as well as images of her work and descriptions of the projects she has participated in. Giannamarie (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)