User:Ilr11/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: Intersex medical interventions
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I'm an aspiring sexologist and would like to learn more about this specific population of people I'd be serving in my career.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes intersex medical interventions in a way that's eloquent and easy to understand. It sort of includes a description of the article's major sections, but I think it could stand to mention them a little more clearly. It does not include information that isn't present in the article, and it's not too overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
This article's content is very relevant to the topic, as well as up to date, with the last edit being made on September 6th of this year. There's no content that is obviously missing or looks misplaced. It definitely addresses equity gaps, as the article is about a largely overlooked and marginalized population of people. I think they could take it a step further by breaking down specifically which cultural norms are responsible for the idea that genitals have to look a certain way to fit into the gender binary, or that a gender binary has to exist at all.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is definitely neutral and not very heavily biased towards any positions. I think the tone is one of general negativity towards intersex medical intervention, which makes complete sense, but I think they still do a good job of presenting why/for what reasons this is a norm.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources included work well, are academic/reliable, and are relatively current. There are a few areas where sources are a bit sparse, but overall there's lots of them.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is definitely well-organized, easy to read, and didn't have any spelling or grammar errors that I noticed. Super informative and readable.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Images are well-captioned and visually appealing, but I wish there were more than a couple of them, particularly in the section that discusses different types of feminizing and masculinizing surgical procedures--maybe some medical diagrams to help visualize the text.

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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There's a lot of helpful conversations going on in the talk page, some of it very passionate when referring to specific corrections. The article is rated a C-class and is a part of WikiProject Medicine as well as WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality.

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
It makes a lot of sense that it's a class C article: you can tell there's work to be done, but what's already there is really easy to read and not completely overwhelming, like many other articles tend to be.

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: