User:Ck320492/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article to evaluate because a significant part of my academic career and education falls within STEM.

My first impression was the significant focus to geopolitical distribution and how other countries interpret STEM, as well as a deeper-dive on STEM in the U.S. I didn't expect a focus on minorities like women and racial/ethnic minorities, but these are very small sections and actually make me wonder why other minorities like disabled people don't have their own section. I'd like to see some information on the prevalence of disabled people in STEM and perhaps their unique contributions.

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.)

Lead section - this article has a clear explanation of the umbrella term that is STEM, and mentions that there is still discussion on what disciplines are considered a part of STEM.

Content - The content offers a succinct overview, but notably is missing President Biden's legislation, the CHIPS act, which has significant STEM infrastructure impacts. It is nice to see minorities mentioned like women and racial groups, but I noticed no mention of disabled people or non-binary identifying people. This means it only partially addresses underrepresented populations.

Tone and balance - The article is significantly more content-driven in U.S. commentary, but otherwise reads with a neutral tone.

Sources - Sources are thorough and do seem to work, though some are behind paywalls (like NYT articles). There does seem to be a gender mix of source authors, which is nice, as well as a mix of names that suggests diverse ethnic group representation. Some U.S. sources are directly from federal agencies, but I'm not certain if that is considered a secondary source.

Organization - The format of different sections in the U.S. doesn't quite make sense to me from the headers. It seems to "zoom in and out" of scope, from NSF to immigration, then racial and ethnic gaps, then American legislation to encourage competitive growth, then STEM education, then more federal agencies, then trajectories of STEM graduates, then back to schools. I would think a grouping of broader topics narrowing to specific STEM education in schools would make more sense.

Images - There is only one small photo toward the end of the article, depicting a woman teaching children geometry in what appears to be a stained-glass window motif. I don't think this photo necessarily adds to the strength of the section about women in STEM. It also doesn't make sense that a sentence about gay men and their STEM representation is under the "Women" section.

Talk page discussion - Most activity appears to have been in 2010-2014, then 2017, and a more recent comment in 2021. I don't think this article is capturing much attention, but I agree with the most recent comment that much of the information now is likely outdated.

Overall impressions - I think most people are likely just looking for "what does STEM stand for" when searching it on the internet, and this article satisfies that. However, it's very U.S.-centric and doesn't include comments on other minority groups in STEM such as those of the LGBTQ+ or disabled communities.