User:Burreaux5/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it is a non-sensual sexual practice that appears to fly under the radar. It matters because while the victim did not consent to sex without functioning condoms, the perpetrator knowingly removes or damages the condom. This behaviour is harmful to victims as they are exposed to potential sexually transmitted infections or are at greater risk of becoming pregnant, even though they had only consented to having sex using condoms. My preliminary impression of the article was that it appeared to be well-structured with the contents being organized in a logical manner.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section was brief, yet informative as it explained what the article was about without going into too much detail. The article's tone remained neutral without presenting the facts in a way that favoured a certain viewpoint. The impact and risks section did not go into as much detail as it could have. Finding sources that provide more details for this section would be helpful for this topic. The structure of the article itself makes sense and is presented in a logical manner. The addition of images would be very helpful as there are none present in the article. This could help to engage readers more and enhance their understanding.
The talk page discussed how this article had been merged with the reproductive coercion article previously. This is no longer the case due to the difference in motive between stealthing and reproductive coercion. Another conversation that occurred was about whether or not this needed to be its own article due to Wikipedia's policy on neologism. This article is rated C-class, low-importance by three different WikiProjects: sexology and sexuality, crime, and medicine/reproductive medicine.
Overall this article has a good starting framework and structure, but requires more detail in certain sections and images, if possible. Further research about this topic will likely aid the quality of this article.