User:Kfreda/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating gender discrimination in the medical profession.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate this article because I found the topic to be interesting and I have some background knowledge on the topic without doing research going into reading. I also thought it would be a good article to review because immediately upon looking at it, I found the organization of the page to be somewhat confusing and repetitive and thought I would have a lot to say in an evaluation.

Lead Section
This section does a good job of addressing gender discrimination and how men and women are both treated negatively as a result of their gender. However, these two sections are split into two different paragraphs, with the lead sentence defining gender discrimination in the medical profession as a culture of bias against female clinicians and a second paragraph describing some effects of gender discrimination on men. I feel that the first sentence could be phrased differently to allow for both interpretations and these two ideas could be better communicated and presented instead of one seeming like an add-on to the other.

Content
This article covers a wide variety of examples and manifestations of gender discrimination in the medical profession. All of the content is relevant to the topic, though I believe there could be more information about how gender discrimination may be experienced differently based on other factors such as race, sexuality, socioeconomic background, and disability. The article is also centered on gender discrimination in the medical profession specifically within the United States without consistently acknowledging that the statistics referenced are based on the US or providing much information, except in the cardiovascular medicine section, about this topic in other countries or even continents more generally.

Tone and Balance
This article does a fairly good job at being balanced and neutral in tone. I believe the sections addressing gender discrimination experienced by men in the medical profession were appropriate in length compared to sections discussing gender discrimination experienced by women in the medical profession while also acknowledging that despite the stereotypes, prejudice, and barriers faced by male nurses, they still benefit from discrimination in the medical profession through the wage gap and bias in hiring and promotion. As mentioned in the content section, a race-focused viewpoint as well as other interdisciplinary viewpoints are underrepresented.

Sources and References
There are many studies which are explicitly references and their results presented without any citations while other factual information is presented with as many as 5 sources. From a glance, most of the sources are very recent and from the last 5 years. Many citations are from peer-reviewed journal articles and the articles which including mainstream news coverage are from reputable sites like Healthline, Time, and the Los Angeles Times. However, I noticed at least one source that was from a blog which discussed the experiences of being a male nurse but was written by a woman. All of the links that I tested (10-15 in total) were functional.

Organization and Writing Quality
I find this article to be very poorly organized. Some information is repetitive and conveyed in multiple separate sections, such as a subsection on the wage gap within the "Female clinicians" section as well as in its own dedicated section, and stereotype threat, which takes up a large portion of the "Medical education" section while also having its own dedicated section. Additionally, there is a section on gender roles and an additional subsection about gender norms, both of which discuss the balance between a medical profession and family life.

Images and Media
The images seem to have more to do with women in medicine than gender discrimination in the medical field. I think that the relevancy of these images is alright because I don't know what images could accurately capture. However, there are two images, a portrait and drawing of a medical school, which are related to Elizabeth Blackwell through Blackwell is never mentioned in the text of the article so it is unclear why these images specifically were chosen. These images should either be removed/replaced or contextualized in some way within the body of the article.

Talk Page Discussion
There are two discussions happening on the talk page. One is related to a title change for the article and the other suggests incorporating a connection to racism in the healthcare profession. These conversations are older, last contributed to in 2017 and 2019, and there don't appear to be any current discussions happening. Interestingly, the article is included in 3 WikiProjects which have each assigned the article different levels of importance (Low, Mid and Top), though all agree that it is a B-class article.

Overall Impressions
Overall, the content of this article is fairly good but it needs some major formatting changes. The information seems accurate and comes from a variety of sources and covers multiple viewpoints, though its covering of interdisciplinary perspectives such as the different experience of women of color compared to white women in the medical profession could use expanding. This article could also be improved by combining and separating sections and subsections so that there isn't as much repetitive information and so that the flow of the article (for example in order of timing in the medical profession with mentorship and education coming first followed by hiring, general experiences, leadership positions) is more smooth and makes more sense.