User:Katelynneller/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: Eugenics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate this article because it is an ethics topic that is relevant for the future of medicine. With new technologies being developed that can alter the human genome, it could be possible that a movement such as eugenics could reappear.

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 describes the concept of eugenics clearly and concisely in the very first sentence of the Lead. The Lead summarizes what the article sections will discuss, but does skip over one subsection. The Lead does not include information not present in the article. It is concise, but could leave more of the discussion about the history of eugenics for the other sections.

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?

Content evaluation
The articles content is all related to eugenics, including the history of the topic and its historical development. It includes information about the concern for eugenics to reemerge given the development of new genetic engineering methods. There is not content missing or content that does not belong.

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
The article appears to be neutral, proposing arguments for both sides of the argument that modern eugenics could be reemerging. It does not appear to be biased towards a particular position. There are quotations from an individual that believes modern eugenics could be an issue, but an alternative opinion is also displayed, that modern genetic engineering should not be considered eugenics. Viewpoints are fairly evenly represented. It does not seem to be an attempt to persuade the reader one way or another.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts are backed up by reliable sources. They seem to reflect the literature on the topic. The sources have a large range of years of publication, but this could be because the history of eugenics is described, which goes back many years. There are recent sources used to describe the ideas of modern eugenics.

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 well-written, with no grammatical or spelling errors. It is well organized and easy to follow, reflecting the major points of the eugenics discussion.

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
There are several pictures included in the topic, most of which are portraits of individuals involved in the eugenics discussion. The images are well-captioned. They adhere to the copyright regulations and are visually appealing.

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 are a lot of conversations occurring behind the scenes because eugenics is a controversial topic. One discussion is regarding eugenics inclusion in a serious in alternative and pseudo-medicine. Some people disagree with its involvement in this topic. The article is rated B-class. It is part of several WikiProjects, including Discrimination, Disability, and Autism. Wikipedia presents both sides of an argument in a non-biased way, rather than having two sides arguing. The talk section resembles more of a class debate.

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
The article's overall status is B-class. The article's strengths include clarity, concision, and neutrality. It has room for improvement, such as adding some more recent research and expanding by adding new sections. The article is well-developed. The issue with the article is that it is a controversial topic, so there will be a debate about the content for some time.

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: