User:AtlasOswald/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Vaginal seeding

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is an underrepresented topic. There is not much on the topic itself and the article needs improvement.

Evaluate the 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?

Yes.

·       Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, it does not. There is also no history about vaginal seeding.

·       Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

Yes it does. It talks about the process and there is no part of the article dedicated to the actual process. Also I don’t believe that micro birthing is mentioned ever again.

·       Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is concise, but doesn’t touch on later mentioned topics such as: Evidence and Risks. The intro should also say what the “seeding” part of vaginal seeding means. It later discusses that “seeding” pertains to the microbial seeding of the infant’s gut.

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?

Yes it is.

·       Is the content up-to-date?

It was last edited October 20th 2020.

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes. Procedure needs to be discussed. It is unknown based upon the article how the process takes place. How is the vaginal fluid collected other than the one sentence given in the intro? How is it placed on the child?

·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

It is hard to say because the article doesn’t mention when Vaginal seeding was first introduced. There is no history about it. Upon further investigation, it looks like wiki says this article is within the scope of” WikiProject Women’s Health.”

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 from a neutral point of view?

Yes. It could use more arguments that present evidence for the practice of vaginal seeding.

·       Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

·       Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Arguments and evidence is very under represented.

·       Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

They are touched on but not described in detail.

·       Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, but with lack of evidence provided that vaginal seeding can be used to benefit the child, it appears as though the article is one sided.

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?

No.

·       Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

They do not reflect all of the available literature on the topic.

·       Are the sources current?

Not all sources are from the last 5 years.

·       Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes but could use more science based authors.

·       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.)

Yes there are. Some of the sources are inappropriate and not fact based. The articles are biased and some seem to come from unreliable sources.

·       Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes I checked the links.

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

·       Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Its easy to read, but it lacks depth. There is no overview of topics and there is no history of the topic.

·       Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I am not the best at this. I would have to copy and paste into Grammarly. This may prove to be beneficial in the future.

·       Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

No. It is only broken into 3 parts, one of which is an introduction that does not cover the rest of the article at all.

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?

Just to answer all of these questions at once, there are no images.

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?

There are none.

·       How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

WikiProject Women’s Health and WikiProject Medicine.

·       How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Well we haven’t talked about it in class, but It definitely could use some work.

Overall impressions

·       What is the article's overall status?

I forget what it’s called but the article is at the lowest tier of grading.

·       What are the article's strengths?

Some information is given on a topic that is not yet mainstream.

·       How can the article be improved?

I could just copy and paste all the things I’ve said in this activity, but I feel like that would be a waste of time. There are many of things I have touched on throughout this exercise.