User:Michaela Fredrickson/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article about Pet cloning.

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 to evaluate this article because I have briefly studied the subject previously in a seminar about artificial intelligence and cloning. As cloning becomes more widely researched, the idea of bringing back pets and other loved ones through the use of cloning has predominated science fiction. For this reason, the study of cloning has been widely observed by the general public in hopes of an "immortal lineage" of sorts of their same pet, or even grandmother. In the excitement of cloning advances, it is critical that we keep our eyes on what is actually possible and what has actually been researched, and I believe Wikipedia should hold this in account when discussing such controversial issues as pet cloning. I thought it would be a good experience to look at the article that is already online and see if it is biased, what its references look like, etc. My first impressions are that there are some definite issues with the page. When I pull up the page on Wikipedia, the first thing that appears is a warning message that there are multiple issues with the page, including the possibility for reference issues. When I looked in the Talk section, there were a few complaints about how the article was "heavy on controversy" but didn't talk much about the actual methods of cloning pets (there are a few different techniques to do so), and I agree with this take on the article. I would like to help revise this article as my project for the class.

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
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * While the lead does have an introductory sentence, it is simply a rearrangement of the words encompassed in the topic for which the page is named. The lead also jumps straight into what one way to clone pets is, instead of giving an overview of how many methods there might be, where pet cloning was discovered, what its purpose is, what it achieves, etc.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead simply dives into material about a cloning method that is never even expanded upon later in the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * As I just mentioned, yes. The lead talks about one type of pet cloning, while no methods for pet cloning were discussed during the remainder of the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, but does not provide enough information about what to expect from the rest of the article.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is much more heavily focused on the controversy surrounding it than on the actual definitions and facts of the topic. There is little information about pet cloning written up except for its history and controversy, so I do not feel as if the content covers the majority of the relevant material needed.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content's latest source is from 2019, so it is not horrifically out of date. That being said, those newer sources are from newspapers and magazines. There is a lot missing but I don't think it's "out of date" per se.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As I mentioned above, nothing is mentioned about the variety of types of pet cloning that have been done or the technical details. There is only really information about history and controversy.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No. I would not say pet cloning is going to close an equity gap anytime soon.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * No. The author's view on pet cloning is very clear based on the language and tone used in the writing.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not in particular, though the use of quotation marks around "cloned" threw me off. I cannot fully put it into words, but this felt derogatory towards the people who believe cloning will give them their exact same pet back instead of sharing the facts with a neutral tone of voice.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, though only one of the methods of pet cloning was mentioned while none of the others were ever brought up.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * The two sides of the argument are briefly discussed, but one side is not cited.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't think it's strong enough to suggest intent to persuade, but the article could be more balanced and neutral tone-wise.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. Not all viewpoints are given a reference and many of the sources are newspapers or magazines as opposed to literature reviews.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I have not done enough research on the topic to say, but I would guess that with more in-depth research some literature reviews could be found on animal cloning (if not specifically pet cloning) that could give more facts than the newspaper articles cited, so I do not believe the available literature is well-represented.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not applicable in this case.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * The majority of the sources used are websites and news coverage, so based on one database search alone, yes there are better sources available.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links to outside sources as well as other Wikipedia articles function properly.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is easy to read, but this is less due to impressive distillation of science so much as avoiding the science of the topic altogether in favor of looking almost exclusively at history.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed in my read-throughs.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but there are more sections that need to be added and a list of the sections for easier navigation should be put in.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No. There are no images whatsoever. Some diagrams showing the cloning process in various techniques could have added something to this article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are two really important comments, and they mainly say that the article focuses too much on controversy and not enough on the various methods of pet cloning that have been tried in the lab. Other users think more technical details should be added.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I can't find a rating, but there is a warning box from Wikipedia at the top that talks about some things that need to be edited within the article. I take this to mean that Wikipedia does not see it as a particularly good article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have yet to discuss pet cloning in class, but I think in general in developmental biology we are much more interested about how something happens than past companies that have utilized the techniques, so I think the article could be refocused a bit to help with that discrepancy.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It needs a lot of work (even Wikipedia has warned that work is needed). I think it could benefit from some review article input, discussion of how pet cloning has been done over the years, and some diagrams.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * There are a few scientific articles in the sources that I can start looking through (specifically their sources) to find more scientific sources for the article on Wikipedia.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * As I mentioned above, more sections, pictures, and better sources. The website and news sources need to be replaced with something more scientifically substantial.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped, as it does not have nearly enough information about the topic itself, instead choosing only to focus on the controversy. The small amount of good sources adds to the image of the article being underdeveloped.