User:Alis117/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Gynecologic oncology
 * I have chosen to investigate gynecological oncology as our editing topic. Most research on drugs and medical conditions already have severe gaps due to medical studies favoring male subjects for practical purposes (lack of menstrual cycle/pregnancy/menopause leading to more regularity). Unfortunately, this has led to downstream effects of a lack of emphasis on women’s health in general in terms of scientific rigor and awareness of the general public. Due to this gender inequity, it is no surprise that something as prevalent as gynecologic oncology remains a stub on Wikipedia today, and I think that this initiative will be one small step forward to advocating for accessibility of women’s health information.

Lead

 * The Lead does include a good introductory sentence describing the field of Gynecologic oncology and it's importance in the current medical field
 * The article unfortunately does not contain major sections since it's only a stub
 * The article again does not have major sections, consisting of only one paragraph (Lead)
 * Concise, however, it randomly starts talking about Gynecologic oncology organizations which is a small aspect of the topic and should be discussed in another section

Content

 * The article's content is relevant to the topic, however it's lacking a lot of information on the topic
 * The content that is there is mostly up to date
 * A huge drawback of the article is that there is a lot of content that is missing in the article. No discussion of the risk factors, signs and symptoms, treatment and diagnosis of gynecologic cancer is being discussed
 * The article does not necessarily talk about underrepresented populations, however, the topic is regarding women's health which has been consistently overlooked in the medical field.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is neutral
 * There does not seem to be any polarization of any kind
 * No views seem to be under or over represented in the article
 * No persuasion seems to be occurring

Sources and References

 * Of the three references it has cited, only one is a high-quality secondary source (using Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), while the other two are random internet pages. This seriously harms the quality of the article by damaging its credibility and is of utmost importance to be fixed when we embark on our editing process.

Organization

 * The article is well-written, and easy to read. There seems to be no grammatical or spelling error. However, the article lacks organization as it does not seem to be well structured into major sections. Information is find in inappropriate sections/places in the article (discussion of organizations in lead).

Images and Media

 * The article does not include any pictures or media. Addition of images could boost reader's interest in the article and increase engagement.

Checking the talk page

 * Since the article is part of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Women's Health the talk page cannot be found directly in the article itself. WikiProject Medicine articles have a general talk page to discuss all sort of medicine related articles. There seems to be no discussion regarding this article in the WikiProject Medicine archives/talk-page.

Overall impressions

 * So far, the article only exists as one paragraph which is a weak lead as it does not center key themes related to oncology articles. The first sentence lists the main types of gynecological cancers (ovarian, uterine, vaginal, cervical, and vulvar) and describes the professional aspect of gynecological cancer. As a fairly primitive stub, the main strength it has is that it sets the stage for other editors to expand on a crucial topic. It also attempts to highlight the epidemiological aspect by citing the prevalence in the US but does not mention worldwide statistics, thus limiting its use for a wider global audience. Its brief analysis of the efficacy of specialized gynecological centers being slightly advantageous compared with general care is well cited and uses neutral language as opposed to picking a side. This is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to avoid a persuasive or opinionated stance. However, it seems that it is premature and warrants an independent section rather than being an area of focus in the first paragraph. Another strength is how the article highlighted the different organizations that are currently raising awareness on gynecologic cancers, informing the reader about potential institutions to reach out for more information