User:Mdmkd2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Steatopygia - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it piqued my interest, and I feel that it ties into the topics that we have discussed in class (WGST: Intersectionality)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section. First, I feel that the lead section of the article is weaker than it should be. Yes, it gives a slight description of the topic, but the details and fleshing-out lack. The article does not go into detail about the lead sections.

Content. While the article's content is relevant to the topic, there is more information and detail that can be added throughout the article. Information that doesn't belong is specifically the pictures that are placed within the article. The author of the article also mentions that the pictures are not the best representation of the definition. I do feel that this article represents an equity gap first because the pictures that are present in the article do not correctly represent the article topic, and there is little to no information about different cultures that "Steatopygia" is present in.

Tone and Balance. The article appears somewhat neutral, but there are areas that seem borderline biased or seem unclear in neutrality. Minority or fringe viewpoints are not accurately described as such. There does not seem to be a persuasive tone present in the article.

Sources and References. All "facts" do not seem to be backed by sources, and in some areas "citation needed" is visible. All sources do not appear to be completely reliable because of things such as the delivery of the information, the ads and pictures within the sources, etc. the sources are also not current, most of them dating back to the year 2016. The authors also do not seem very diverse, many of the sources are by authors who are from the same European region. The links to the sources do work, some of them, however, lead back to Wikipedia.

Organization and Writing Quality. The article appears to be a bit unorganized, lacking both supportive details and structure. The article does not appear to have apparent/obvious grammatical errors. The article also lacks a concise and easy-to-follow breakdown. There is not much information, detail, or specific knowledge present about the topic.

Images and Media. The article does not include images that enhance the understanding of the topic. As I mentioned earlier, the author mentions that the images included are not the best representation of the topic. However, the images are captioned by the author in a way that appears they represent the topic. It appears that the images do follow the Wikipedia copyright guidelines. The pictures that the author did include are laid out right at the top.

Talk Page Discussion. On the talk page, the alleged facts that this article talks about are being questioned by some users. There is also talk about alleged tampering with a picture that was used and exaggerated instead of being an accurate representation of the topic. Overall, there seems to be a bit of discourse. The article appears to be "within the scope" of WikiProjects such as Anthropology and Medicine. However, the article is rated as low importance. This topic differs from the way we talked about it in class first, due to the lack of history and details included in the article, as well as the presentation of the definition and other information included in the article.

Overall impressions. The overall status of the article is "a work in progress". The strengths of the article are the foundational information such as the reference to a part of the history of the topic, as well as the definition. The article could be improved with more up to date and reliable references/sources, more details, and more information to cover the topic. I can assess the article as incomplete due to factors such as places that are marked "citation needed", pictures and sources that are not up to date, and overall the lack of detail and information to support and thoroughly cover the topic.