User:Clarissa Velez/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Miscarriage and grief
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because miscarriage is a phenomenon in American society that a lot of women experience, but a lot of people do not talk about. I also think that especially for some marginalized communities, miscarriage can carry extensive shame in addition to grief, and the cultural considerations of this article are present but they are vague and simply divide between "Western" and "Non-Western" cultures. In my opinion, miscarriage is a super important page to have extensive cultural considerations on because women who do not have access to non-public education about miscarriage and would have to rely on Wikipedia are also women who are more prone to carrying shame around miscarriage (and would benefit from reading a section on Wikipedia that they felt really described their lived experience with miscarriage). When I think about the kind of people who belong to marginalized identities and would look at a Wikipedia page for explanations/knowledge, I would think that some statistics normalizing miscarriage would be comforting, and that is lacking in the article. Generally speaking as well, the article's flow is off; it is pretty disorganized, even when just looking at the table of contents; and all of the sections seem to be in a "bare bones" stage of development.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The very first sentence of the lead does clearly and concisely describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The description in the lead seems somewhat tangential to miscarriage and grief, as most of the lead is dedicated to explaining the difference between grief, bereavement, and depression instead of providing a more thorough description of miscarriage and grief. The second paragraph of the lead does a better job of introducing the rest of the article, but there is still work that could be done there. (A little more could be said about duration and recovery, for example).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does include information that is not present in the article. For example, the lead talks about the difference between grief, bereavement, and depression. I actually think distinguishing between these concepts is valuable, but it should be a separate section of the article (which it is not) rather than a part of the introduction.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead could probably be filtered into one paragraph that is more focused.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I do think a lot of the article's content is relevant to the topic. The main problem with this article, in my opinion, is that some content that is relevant is either disorganized in the article or missing entirely.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most of the content for this article is recent enough, but I think the content could be more up-to-date. The majority of the citations are less than ten years old, and some of the citations would even meet the APA 7 criteria of being five years or younger.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article has more of an issue with missing content than it does with content that does not belong. I think a lot of the topics are addressed, but they are addressed vaguely. For example, I think it would be more normalizing and informative to include statistics about how frequently women experience their miscarriage as a form of trauma. As another example, I think the "Children and Concerns about Future Pregnancies" could be expanded as a general "Family Impact", and some information regarding how miscarriage impacts marriage could also be helpful.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does have a short "In culture" section. I'm not a fan of this section, though, because it only informs the reader about "Western" versus "Non-Western" ways of coping with grief after miscarriage. This is problematic to me because there is quite a bit of literature on women's feelings of shame when experiencing miscarriage. This is a huge cultural consideration that is being overlooked.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * From what I have read so far, the article does seem neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do not see any claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. The only thing that stands out as a little alarming to me is that woman who experience in-vitro fertilization seem to be more depressed following miscarriage (as in-vitro fertilization is not a form of pregnancy that every woman is able or willing to undergo). It may be better to just include a small excerpt such as "despite many women benefitting from in-vitro fertilization".
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is definitely not much in the article on how women of different racial or ethnic minority identities experience grief after miscarriage similarly or differently than woman who hold privileged racial or ethnic identities.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not see the article attempting to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are some facts in the article that still need to be cited appropriately. For example, a medical citation is needed for the point that woman who experience grief after miscarriage are more prone to developing obsessiveness.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is pretty extensive and diverse list of sources. Some of them are books, and others are articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are mostly ten years old or younger.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I do not think there is enough historically marginalized individuals represented in the article. Even the cultural considerations section is talking about Swedish women, and not women who have been more historically marginalized.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * A lot of the links do work. That being said, they are links to peer-reviewed journal articles that do not grant public access. Considering this topic is something that common readers would be invested in if they personally experienced miscarriage, I am not sure having the majority of the citations inaccessible is the best thing.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * One of the main issues with the article is that it is not an easy read. The sections are disorganized. Some sections (the lead) should be shorter, and others (In culture, children and concerns about future pregnancy) should be longer. There are places in which I think that the article is not expanding enough (i.e. what does "obsessiveness" look like for women who are experience grief and miscarriage?) and places in which I think the article is tangential for the section (i.e. talking about gender-related cultural considerations in the lead).
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article does have pretty substantial grammatical issues. There are places in which a comma should be a semicolon (i.e. "Not only does miscarriage tend to be a traumatic event, women describe their treatment afterwards to be worse than the miscarriage itself"). There is also a list of "common lay descriptions" of grief and miscarriage. I wish the list had all of the items in the list in the same noun or gerund form (i.e. "shocked" and "numbed" instead of "shocked" and "numbness").
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * One of the major issues I have with this article is that it is not well organized. Some of the points that are in the lead would make more sense to put in the other sections of the article. (i.e. common male versus female responses should be a cultural consideration). There is also a psychological impact section that has subheadings in what seems like a random order (I.e. Trauma, then Mental Health, then Complicated Grief).

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not include images that enhance the understanding of the topic. The picture is a painting from the late 1800s.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions for the images are not well-captioned. It just states the title of the painting and the painter. When the reader clicks on the hyperlink, it directs them to a Wikipedia page for the painter who created the painting.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think the image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations because the painting is very old and there is a source cited for it.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are not laid out in a visually appealing way. The woman in the painting does not capture what miscarriage and grief looks like in women today, and there is only that one image on the page.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * I am not seeing a lot of conversation on this article. There are some sections that have been removed by people, but it seems that no one has substantially edited it since November of 2017.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is part of the Psychology WikiProject, and it is rated as start quality and mid important to the field. The article is also part of the Death WikiProject (Start Class, Mid Important) and the Women's Health WikiProject (Start Class, High Importance).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The few times I have talked about miscarriage in class, the grieving process is viewed from a cultural lens. The cultural component is missing almost entirely in this article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is currently considered of mid importance and start quality.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * A strength of the article is that to me, the tone is neutral and none of the information that I would consider to be misinformation.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I would include more statistics to normalize miscarriage, include more considerations for families and couples who are experiencing grief and miscarriage, reorganize the different sections and some of the content to fit into a more adequate section, and I would include more cultural considerations if I were to improve this article. I would also fix the grammar mistakes to the best of my abilities.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I do not think that the article is "poorly developed", but I would consider it very underdeveloped.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: