User:Beekeepergabi/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Women in science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as I wanted to chose a topic relating to science and after looking through all my options, I was most intrigued by the women in science article. Throughout my education journey, when learning about biology, I am mostly taught advancements and discoveries that were discovered by men, and a lot of the times I have learned there is always a secret hidden female name in the background that is never quite credited, but was still an integral part to the innovation. As a woman myself, I find inspiration in other women who are accredited in science and enjoy learning about them and their past. My impression of the article was good, there was a strong lead section and seemed to be thorough when scrolling through it. The citations looked reliable as well when skimming through the sources.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article is long and wordy, which is beneficial as it is thorough but at times some information was deemed unnecessary, and strayed away from the topic at hand.

For the majority of the article I found the tone to be neutral and unbiased, and mainly just gave an accurate description of the women and their paths in science throughout history. However, it can be difficult in a topic such as this to remain unbiased and neutral, as it does cover topics seen as controversial, so there are areas which can be seen.

The article covers a lot of ground, from history of many specific women to statistics of women and the growth of representation for women in STEM related fields through the years. The article is detailed, and does a good job in equally representing and explaining each topic.

The citations were relevant and when clicking on the links, they worked. Many of the sources cited seemed to be recent, at least most of them from the 2000s and up. However, throughout the article there are some citations still needed, but the ones provided are up to standard.

The main issue with the article are the two headings "Lack of agency and representation" and "Reasons for disadvantages". Both of these sections have NPOV disputes, many citations are needed, have improper synthesis and have a lack of neutrality towards the subject at hand. These sections can be seen as "controversial" but I believe are still necessary to include as it is not up to debate that women throughout history have been underrepresented in science, especially in past centuries as women were not yet seen as equal to men due to sexism, which is covered in the "Societal disadvantages" subheading.

The talk page has lots of good discussions, with many people adding to it, the most recent addition being last year. Many edits have been reviewed and fixed by an editor, marked as "Checked okay." Unfortunately, there are some discussions and critiques on the importance of the topic, some deeming the page as sexist as it shines a light on women only and forgetting male scientists. Personally, this critique is not only irrelevant as society naturally gives the spotlight to men, it is also ignorant (I am being biased I know, but I am only evaluating with my personal opinion).