User:Eguest-clemson/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: Haruko Obokata
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:
 * I chose this article after looking through the different female biologists pages that Wikipedia has. I started to click on a few of the choices. I find STEM cell research very interesting so I decided to chose Obokata's article. I was also intrigued by the fact that her articles were revoked. There is a lot of scandal around her work. sxx c

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The first sentence is one that describes who Obokata is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. There is a contents section that has everything laid out. It also quickly touches on the most important aspects of her career.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. Everything mentioned in the Lead is further explained in the body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise. Arguably, it could use more details.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. Everything discussed is related to Obokata.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. The most recent thing mentioned is her book which was written in 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There could be more detail about her articles. There also could be more detail about how her PhD was revoked. There is no 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?
 * Yes. Female scientists are underrepresented.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * There are parts that seem neutral and others that seem biased. The article claims that Obakata "encouraged the media's attention on her" which is a very biased statement.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes. The claim mentioned above seems biased towards her being someone who did wrong in the science world.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * It seems that the article has more quotes from sources that view Obakata in a more negative light. All of the positive points of view are from early in her career. Most of the things around the scandal are people who judged her harshly.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I believe that the article is written in a way that demonizes Obakata.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. All facts are cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. There are lots of sources that span different types of literature on the topic. There are newspapers, scientific articles, etc.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. There are articles from as recent as 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No. Most of the sources seem to be from news articles written by men.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of the links work but there was one that did not.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The article is very clear, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were a few instances where STAP was not capitalized.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The article is broken down in a logical way.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the talk page was casual discussion about how they thought the scientist was a fraud. There was also some discussion on whether or not another scientist, Dr. Charles Vacanti, should have gotten credit for the STAP work.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-class. It is a part of several WikiProjects including women scientists, molecular and cellular biology, and medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Not applicable. We did not discuss this in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think that the article needs some work. There are places where more detail could be added. In addition, there are a few capitalization errors. It also needs some sources that are not biased. There is a lot of criticism and negative views towards Obokata.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has a lot of sources and information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There could be more details. I would like to see more detail about the actual experimentation performed by Obokata. I would also like to see more about her life, etc. There could also be a picture of Obokata.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is in the middle. It is okay the way it is now, but it could be more complete.

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: