User:Emma2244/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.

Stem cell laws and policy in the United States

I chose this article to evaluate to ensure it will be useful for the short paper #1. I will also evaluate the article to check for the revision of an article summary.

Lead


This article does not include a lead section. The lead section is non-existent, as it does not adequately summarize the main points of the article.


 * 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


Content seems relevant to topic. People must understand what stem cells are in order to understand the laws governing them and why the courts may make the decision they do. Article could mention the propositions revolved around stem cell research, including this year. Not sure if Roe V wade is relevant to this particular topic


 * 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


"(While he claimed that 78 lines would qualify for federal funding, only 19 lines were actually available.)" seems partially biased. The diction "only" details the hypocrisy of Bush. Places Obama quote, can perhaps place a quote from Bush or Clinton to show both sides (restriction vs leniency towards stem cell research)


 * 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
All facts are backed up by reasonably reliable sources. Some sources include, however, NPR, New York Times, etc that may be biased media (not scholarly journals). May need to look up more current articles. Number 18 seems very sketchy (archive.org), especially as one of the links do not work, Source number 14 also does not work.


 * 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

 * Science background is partially hard to understand do to scholarly vocabulary. Some sentences, especially in the federal law section, need grammatical revision to make more sense.The article is broken down into sections in an organized manner. Perhaps divide the section "Federal law" into a timeline as well, or put sub heading/section that will make it easier to read (Bush's Presidency, Obama Administration, etc). Very organized time line at the end of the article.
 * Science background is partially hard to understand do to scholarly vocabulary. Some sentences, especially in the federal law section, need grammatical revision to make more sense.The article is broken down into sections in an organized manner. Perhaps divide the section "Federal law" into a timeline as well, or put sub heading/section that will make it easier to read (Bush's Presidency, Obama Administration, etc). Very organized time line at the end of the article.


 * 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


Only one photo in the article. Caption gets the idea across, but does not explain where the signing is taking place or what date, or which bill.The image is visually appealing. More photos should be included


 * 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


This article is part of Wikiprojects, considered a start class. An important note in the talk chat from 2019 is "There's no discussion of the regulation of stem cell therapy. No mention of the FDA. Plenty of resources." However, it is a matter of how reliable these sources are.


 * 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
This articles is relatively well developed. The article does well in detailing the political history of stem cell research in law, as well as specifying and exemplifying certain states. The article mainly needs an overview summarizing the main points (how long should this be?). The article may need to break the "federal law section" down further. Grammatical errors are sparse but still need revision.


 * 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: