User:Dikshas05/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Emergency contraception

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to a topic I'm very interested. There is a of talk currently about emergency contraception and reproductive rights, and I wanted to see what kind of information the Wikipedia page provides in order to give those who can get pregnant reliable information. The Wikipedia page for emergency contraception matters because many people would consult it while trying to make an informed choice. People might want to know about any side effects or if it's safe before they decide to purchase it. My preliminary impression of the article was the amount of detail it had. The article provided information on every subtopic I could think of, and even information that I didn't, like the history of emergency contraception. I think that if you were quickly consulting the internet for information, this article would be good to visit.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The first sentence provides a quick definition of emergency contraception, which concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It is useful for someone who may not know what emergency contraception is at all, or what it is used for. It then briefly talks about the different types of emergency contraception and the ways they are used. The article includes other names for emergency contraception, like "the morning after pill" in its lead section, so people who are searching would be able to recognize if they've seen it before. The lead section does not include information that isn't present in the article, other than the fact that it is sometimes referred to as a "morning-after" pill. The lead is concise and gets its point across in three brief paragraphs.

Content:

All of the article's content is relevant to the topic, and it is extremely detailed. Since this topic is pretty modern to begin with, most of the sources listed are from 2018 and onward. Thus, all the content must be pretty update. I think some of the forms of contraception the article talks about may be approved by the FDA now, but those are addressed in the Talk page. Any important subtopics I can think of have been included. I think there could be more detail in the EC and sexual assault section, because I left that section wanting to know more. It would be interesting to include lived experiences. The article contains information about the history and availability in the United States. However, it doesn't really touch upon any other countries, aside from briefly mentioning trouble in the United Kingdom. Thus, it does not relate to historically underrepresented populations or topics. I am curious to know about emergency contraceptives or equivalents in other countries around the world.

Tone and Balance:

This article is mostly informational, so it is neutral. While reproductive rights are considered "controversial" (they really shouldn't be), the article does not dive into the arguments made by either side. Instead, the article seems to focus on the facts behind what emergency contraceptives are and how they work. However, there is a section at the end about "Availability" that talks about the Roe v. Wade case and the Doe v. Bolton case. I think this section remains neutral, as it does not argue for a particular side. Instead, it presents the facts and the outcome of each case as it relates to emergency contraceptives. I think discussing it in terms of the Unites States was important, but I wish there was more about what the situation was in other countries, even if emergency contraceptives don't exist there. The article does not attempt to impose or persuade the reader in any way, though.

Sources and References:

All the facts in the article have a numbered source following them. There is no information in this article that is not cited. Usually, Wikipedia highlights information that doesn't have sources, and I don't see that in this article. While looking through the sources section, I found that most sources were either peer-reviewed journal articles or from organizations like the FDA or the WHO. Thus, most sources are from educational and reliable sources. However, this means that the sources came from one kind of demographic of people, and you don't hear the voice of historically marginalized individuals. As mentioned before, there is no section in the article that discusses emergency contraceptives in other countries. Maybe it doesn't exist, but it would be interesting to have an overview. Most sources are peer-reviewed articles, so I don't think there are necessarily "better" sources that could be used. All of the links in the Wikipedia page work, and they lead to another Wikipedia page.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is well-written and detailed. There are no huge run-on and convoluted sentences. Any audience looking for information could read and comprehend the article easily. From what I could see, there were no grammatical or spelling errors in the article, It is broken down into digestible sections that are further broken down into subheadings. I think this makes it easier to find a specific piece of information within the article if you were looking for it.

Images and Media:

The article only includes one image of an emergency contraceptive pill inside the packaging at the top of the article. I think the image may have been uploaded by a user in 2010, and then verified by other people on Wikipedia. The caption of the image is "An emergency contraception pill," which gets the job done, but I think there could be more detail. The caption could mention what brand and the fact that the pill is still inside the packaging, to avoid any confusion. The image was credited when you click on it, so it does not violate copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion:

The talk page includes debates and conflicting information from sources about the effectiveness of emergency contraceptives. Some people are suggesting to include one from the more reliable sources, while other suggest including all the information and mentioning that it conflicts. The article was Natural sciences good article nominee, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time. It is a part of the vital articles, medicine, sexology and sexuality, gender studies, feminism, women's history, and women's health WikiProjects.

Overall impression:

The article is on it's way to meeting "good article criteria." It's strengths were doing extensive research on the side effects and effectiveness of emergency contraceptives and providing these details for those who might be looking into it. However, the article could be improved by including information on emergency contraceptive alternatives or views on it in other countries. Other than that, I think the article is well-developed and consults multiple reliable sources.