User:Dewdrop2000/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: Gynecologic Oncology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: We have chosen to work on the Gynecologic Oncology stub (a) which has the highest priority rating overall. The Urogenital Neoplasm stub has no progress and is of lower importance, as well as being less effective as a topic in terms of reach/impact. The article for Gynecologic cancer disparities in the United States is also fairly developed in comparison to the other two and is rated as low importance in both WikiProjects it belongs to. Aside from ratings, we feel that the article we chose is the most applicable to our objective of contributing to Wikipedia with the intent to decrease the gender gap for health information accessibility and quality. Moreover, gynecological cancer has a significant impact on the quality of women’s lives by putting both their lives and ability to bear children at risk, so it is an essential article for Wikipedia readers to be able to access.

Lead
So far, the article only exists as one paragraph which is a weak lead as it does not center key themes related to oncology articles. The first sentence lists the main types of gynecological cancers (ovarian, uterine, vaginal, cervical, and vulvar) and describes the professional aspect of gynecological cancer.
 * Guiding questions
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
As a fairly primitive stub, the main strength it has is that it sets the stage for other editors to expand on a crucial topic. It also attempts to highlight the epidemiological aspect by citing the prevalence in the US, but does not mention worldwide statistics, thus limiting its use for a wider global audience.
 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
It's brief analysis of the efficacy of specialized gynecological centers being slightly advantageous compared with general care is well cited and uses neutral language as opposed to picking a side. This is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to avoid a persuasive or opinionated stance. However, it seems that it is premature and warrants an independent section rather than being an area of focus in the first paragraph.
 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Of the three references it has cited, only one is a high-quality secondary source (using Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), while the other two are random internet pages. This seriously harms the quality of the article by damaging its credibility and is of utmost importance to be fixed when we embark on our editing process.
 * Guiding questions
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
There are no jarring errors, however, as mentioned above the first paragraph does not seem to highlight the key aspects of a Medical article on Wikipedia, neglecting guidelines such as as diagnostics, symptoms, etc.
 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
The article does not include any images/media. We may explore this as another area of interest for our project.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * Our group will not be addressing any matters on the Talk Page as there is currently nothing except for updates about the article’s priority rating/classification, as well as involvements in WikiEducation Foundations.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions
Overall, the article is fairly poor and primitive. We hope to improve this article by updating references, editing the lead to focus on major aspects according to guidlelines of the Wikiprojects it belongs, and add major sections according to those guidelines (focusing on risk factors, signs/symptoms, and treatment).
 * Guiding questions
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: