User:Aaa564/Evaluate an Article

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

Which article are you evaluating?

Eugenics in the United States#:~:text=American eugenicists tended to believe,, disabled and "immoral."

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Our group is interested in this topic for our class assignment, given our in class discussion on the medical-industrial complex and its history with eugenics. It was rated as a start-class article with needing a lot of work, so we thought it would be a good candidate for our class project.

Evaluate the article

The lead sentence gives a brief and concise idea of what the article is about. However, the lead section does not contain an overview of the sections in this article. Overall, the lead section is a bit wordy, but it does not contain anything that is not covered in the article.

The content included covers a lot of ground, but there are still some gaps. Specifically, there is nothing about disability-selective abortion, forced sterilizations in prisons, and there could be more information on race-mixing laws. It does address topics related to historically misrepresented groups. More up to date information could be added, specifically regarding ICE detainment centers.

The tone feels pretty neutral. The article focuses heavily on forced sterilization, which is a major part of this topic, but more information could be added about the history and other topics to make it more balanced.

Throughout the article, there are missing citations. Further, some of the citations used are not strong secondary sources. The links that I tried did work. There are better peer-reviewed articles that could be used as sources.

The article overall is wordy and lacks clarity in certain sections. There are some grammatical errors throughout. The overall flow of the article is logical and easy to follow.

The images used are helpful to the article.

The talk page is very active. Many people feel this article is biased, but they do not elaborate as to why. This article has been a part of many course assignments, with the most recent being in 2022. The article is rated start-class and is of high-importance to the Human Rights Wikiproject.

The article overall needs some work. The articles strengths include the number and variety of articles linked to create connections between topics. Also, the flow of the article is strong. The article has content gaps, the writing is not always clear and concise, and some citations are missing or not strong secondary sources. Addressing these would strengthen the article. Currently, the article is underdeveloped.