User:Angiesyz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

 * 1) Male contraceptive
 * 2) Reproductive justice

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

 * 1) Male contraceptive: it is an article rates as "S," indicating some improvements need to be done. The article also appears to be less complete than other articles with a high rating. In addition, the topic of male contraceptive is rarely discussed among general population, with the majority focus is on female contraceptive methods. Therefore, I have chosen this article for evaluation to enhance the completeness and clarity.
 * 2) Reproductive justice is a broad topic, with abundant history across the globe. This article comprehensively record the variation of how reproductive justice have been practiced. It can enhance my understanding of reproductive justice while evaluating the article, and also learning and examining how interrelated contraceptives and reproductive justice are.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Lead section: The introductory sentence is concise and clearly defines the topic. The brief description and examples presented in the beginning are conclusive for the rest of the content. Content: This section is highly relevant to the topic. However, whether the content is up-to-date is questionable, particularly the quantitative measurements for different contraceptives. Also, more information could be added to "currently available methods," covering many related subtopics. In addition, the article may not deal with the equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.  Tone and Balance: The article is in a neutral tone. Some claims appear heavily biased toward the position that male contraception is currently not well-developed, which is absolutely true. There aren't many minority viewpoints in this article, and more underrepresented viewpoints can be present. This article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of male contraceptives lack innovation and more method is needed. Sources and References: All the facts are backed up by reliable sources. However, not all resources reflect the available literature on the topic and may not be current. There are some better sources available that could better reflect the current statistics. On the other hand, there are many research projects about male contraception ongoing now but with high confidentiality, so there is very limited access to the statuses of those studies. The article is well-written and it is concise, clear, and easy to read with great categorization. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized. The images included in the article are well-selected and enhance understanding of the topic. These images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and in a visually appealing way. However, more images of male contraception can be included to deliver more clarity. On the talk page, all the conversations are related to this topic. Overall, the article is well-written and all points are well-delivered. The article can be improved by updating some parts with newly collected data and research results. In my opinion, this article is underdeveloped, with lots of room for new information.
 * 2) It is a comprehensive and well-developed article that includes perspectives from different nations and eras. The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic and a brief description of major sections. But, It may be overly detailed, and would be better with a shorter, and more succinct lead section. All the content are relevant to the topic but slightly not up-to date. For example, something new could be added to the section "Women in digital spaces," since there have been many innovative ideas and social media movement happening in the digital spaces and it seems like the last update was only in 2016. Most importantly, there seems some formatting issues which need to be fixed ("Asia" is in smaller font size comparing other titles, etc), as well as some rephrasing to achieve the clarity for the sake of reading experience. The article is in a neutral tone and not heavily biased toward any position. These viewpoints are appropriately presented and some fringe/alternative explanations are included in the article as well. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position. All sources are backed up by a reliable secondary sources, with many are directly quoted. However, it is questionable whether the sources was written by a diverse spectrum of authors, since the emphasis is heavily weighted on the western world with only a small portion of page depicting reproductive justice in developed countries. Not all sources are current, but all the link I have checked work. I personally think the organization of the article could be better, because the way the author organized the "International" section is bit confusing. There isn't any image or media on the page, which is a part needs significant revision. Wikipedia page without any pictures could bore readers, and there are many historical images that can be chosen from for this page. All the talk page discussion are relevant to the topic and there have been lots of discussion around it. Conclusively, it is a great article but with overwhelming information and requires a more sophasicated organization for subsections within sections.