User:El34aya/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Abortion in Vermont

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.)

'''As a member of "H*yas for Choice," (the reproductive justice club at Georgetown), I was interested in learning more about abortion in other states (vermont is close to MA - my home-state), and was curious to learn more about their political standpoint. I am happy to say that (after reading just one paragraph of 'Abortion in Vermont,' I have already learned that VT is one of the most pro-choice/pro-women states in the US!'''

Although the topic of the article interests me, I can already tell that there are various grammatical (and some content) errors that I look forward to correcting.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No - way too brief/random.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No - discusses general facts about abortion laws in VT.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes - discusses abortion/abortion laws in Vermont. However, there is definitely a lot of missing information.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Relatively - the most recent date mentioned in the article was 2022. However, there is only one mention of an event that took place in 2022 (overturning of Roe v. Wade) and there is very little detail surrounding the event.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes - missing information under 'Abortion rights views and activities' tab. Not only is just one protest mentioned in the section, but there are little/no details on the protest to begin with.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes - deals with women's rights / reproductive justice. Abortion has long-time-been a controversial topic in the United States.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes - just states facts/statistics.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe someone could argue that the Wikipedian focuses too much on the pro-abortion side of it, and does not address the anti-abortion population in Vermont.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No - the article does not give enough details/credit to women and protestors (i.e. the activists section of the article was tiny).
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? After looking through the list of cited sources at the end of the article, I was surprised to find that most of the sources were reliable. However, some sources, like "Scotus Blog," were opinion based and are therefore not Wikipedia-worthy.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes (2022), however, there are no 2023 articles.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, most of the authors were women (marginalized individuals).
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes - the following article (https://constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/americas-town-hall-programs/scotus-overturns-roe-v-wade-in-dobbs-abortion-case-msnbcs-ali-velshi-and-jeffrey-_rosen#:~:text=In%20Dobbs%20v.,Casey%20(1992).) also touches upon Roe V Wade Dobbs vs. Jackson, yet it is a more neutral source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Although the article is easy to read/concise, I feel like the Wikipedian skipped over a lot of important information in each section and jumps around without warning to different topics every 1-2 sentences.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes - some wordy/confusing sentences missing correct punctuation
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? As mentioned above, the article does not evenly spread the information. In some sections there are 2 dense paragraphs, while in others, there is no more than a sentence of information.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No - one graph.
 * Are images well-captioned? No - very brief description of graph (no units, details, etc...)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes - next to text that touches upon the image.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are pretty bad arugments going on behind the scenes on the Talk page. Some readers feel that the article misrepresents VT's stance on abortion, while others feel that the article perfectly displays VT and iits stance.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated C-class / part of Wikiprojects Women
 * Does it feel like a balanced representation? (connect to issues we have been talking about) Yes - there is a lot of talk about what is neutral/excessive/missing based on people's personal bias.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Overall - very poor article (lack of information, disconnected information, poor layout).
 * What are the article's strengths? The article provides tables/charts/graphs and statisitcs regarding VT abortion laws/action over the past few decades.
 * How can the article be improved? I think that the "Judicial History," and "Abortion rights views and activities," sections should either be removed (due to lack of/incorrect information) OR they should be expanded upon and include more details.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Very poorly developed / bad flow.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting