User:BambiNaba/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Voluntary childlessness - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because exercising the right to not have children is becoming an important political and social statement in our modern day. As changes are made to how a person is able to control their own body, the active choice to not have kids becomes charge with certain social and cultural meaning and more and more people will take an interest into the reasoning and methodology behind being voluntarily childless.

Evaluate the article
The introductory sentence is concise and informative on the subject. The leading section could provide a better summary of the information contained in the article and an overview of the covered topics. The lead article also provides bits of information that feel interesting about the topic but does not give a clear review of the points covered. I feel it could better encompass the article’s contents.

The article provided good content on the subject of voluntary childlessness but felt surface-level. The content could have provided sources more current, as well as more sources regarding the history of being intentionally childless. The article touches on practices and attitudes around voluntary childlessness globally, but with varying amounts of information, both in-depth and otherwise, which could leave out crucial perspectives around the subject.

The article is relatively neutral, but the presentation of social attitudes toward voluntary childless people included no proponents of positive social attitudes. Including these would make the article feel less like a persuasive one and represent more viewpoints. The use of certain language throughout the article gives an impression of an argument against the topic, such as the use of “unwillingness” when a word like “lack of desire” would work.

There was information and claims made without sources. The list of sources was adequate but cited argumentatively charged sources, such as CNN. The article included a variety of sources from varying perspectives and authors. The article also seemed to capture a media-charged perspective on the topic and could have included more scientific or academic sources. The sources checked did work and cited sources were well cited.

Besides the small complications in the tone of the paper, the article has overall good writing. I think that the use of bulleted and listed information works but could also be replaced with structured paragraphs to present the ideas more cohesively and fully.

The article does ok with the use of media and pictures to encapsulate and improve upon ideas. The citing of the pictures does not feel interesting but is not necessarily crucial to the article.

The Talk page was heavily charged with opinions about the topic rather than the content and how it fails to persuade rather than how well it informs. The article received a rating of low quality on importance.

Overall, I think the article covers good information and has lots of room for more information and improvement. I think a more historical and academic perspective would benefit this article and add a well-rooted foundation to the article. I think the article needs further revision and addition to address tone and content issues.