User:Georgiapayne7/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: (link) Tuskegee syphilis experiment
 * I chose this article because the Tuskegee syphilis experiment was mentioned in one of our readings for class, Medical Apartheid. When these experiments were referenced, I felt they sounded familiar but felt uneducated on their contents and impact.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does include an introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead does not provide a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead includes information not present in the article. The lead is almost longer than the article itself.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The lead is long, convoluted, and disorganized. It provides a large amount of information not present anywhere else in the article and does not provide a summary of the content sections within the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the contents are relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content is relatively comprehensive, but more information could have been added regarding similar studies on black Americans. Additionally, the article contained minimal background on syphilis.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content in this article is solid and provides information on several perspectives of the study. As aforementioned, some of the information found in the lead should be moved to sections of the Content.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article appears neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article does not seem biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Perhaps the article elaborates too much on the clinicians involved with the study and not enough on the patients who took part in the study.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article is not persuasive.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is not meant to persuade and overall seems neutral. However, there is a large amount of content on the study's clinicians that would be better used if it provided perspectives of individuals who took part in the study itself.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the article uses references for any facts it mentions.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and there are many sources cited.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most sources are current. Many sources are from 2019, and those that are older than five years or so are rare.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The long list of sources is one of the strengths of this article. There are many sources listed, and most are relatively current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No, I did not feel the article was well-written. While it did not contain many grammatical or spelling errors, it was not structured in such a way that made it conducive to understanding the topic easily. It was disorganized and jumped around frequently from topic to topic without transitions.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * As aforementioned, no.

Organization evaluation
This is the main weakness of the article. The article has poor writing and feels disjointed to a reader.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * A few
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not particularly

Images and media evaluation
There definitely could have been more images included in the article, particularly some of the Tuskegee site where the study took place.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * WikiProjects: Medicine, Nursing, Alabama, History of Science, Human Rights. The article is rated as B-class for all.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't explicitly discussed this experiment in class, but I would be interested to read more about it from a primary source.
 * We haven't explicitly discussed this experiment in class, but I would be interested to read more about it from a primary source.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page isn't super active and mostly discusses the addition or removal of quotes or the necessity of adding more pop culture references.

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article excels in its large amount of content and long list of references. It could use some improvement in its organization and writing style, as this would make the content and message of the article more digestible for a reader.

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: