User:MoltenuniverseSL/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Magnus Hirschfeld

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because we discussed Magnus Hirschfeld in class. He is of great notability not just in German history, but in the history of sexuality and gender within Europe and the world.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

Does the lead include a introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic?

The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes Hirschfeld's location of work, and what kind of work he did. This relates to some of the key and information-heavy sections about him within the article.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's sections?

The lead does refers to the biggest sections of the article, specifically about his work in Germany which he most known for.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead in this article does not include information that is not referenced in detail within the article.

Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise, and focuses on the main points surrounding Mangus Hirschfeld and why he is a notable figure. It simplifies the information that is featured further down within the article, and gives the reader an idea about what to expect as the most detailed sections of the article.

Content
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article's content is absolutely relevant to the topic, and frequently makes references to the broader historical context which Hirschfeld's life and work was found in. The amount of text included is detailed and does not deviate from the topic.

Is the content up-to-date?

The content is absolutely up to date, and many of the sources cited within the article are from the last 6 years. For example, a biography written by Heike Bauer (published in 2017) is cited overwhelmingly within the references section. In addition to this, there are several academic articles written in the last 4 years that have been cited.

is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

It does not appear as if there is any content that does not belong, all of the content is relevant to Hirschfeld's life in a way that is necessary to understanding his perspectives and approaches within his work.

''Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?''

Although Magnus Hirschfeld is well known in many respects, his work concerns marginalized groups that continue to deal with repression to this day. His life is significantly well documented, and is relevant to current political struggle globally. Hirschfeld's work relates to sex reassignment surgery, a highly contested topic that concerns transgender history.

Tone and Balance

Is the article neutral?

This article appears to be neutral in its balancing of beliefs and its language. Any sort of claims about importance or significance are quoted from various people, and not a claim on the part of the editors themselves.

are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

It does not appear as if there are any sentences that appear biased, they are quoting certain individuals whose views either agree or disagree with Hirschfeld.

are there viewpoints that are overrrepresented, or underrrepresented?

There is more references to Heike Bauer's criticisms of Hirschfeld's beliefs than any other individual. Bauer is overwhelmingly represented within the references list, which is a bit of a problem. If editors can find other sources to back up the citations drawn to Bauer, that would be a good start.

does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article does not do this deliberately, but the overrepresentation of Bauer's opinions on Hirschfeld tend to give the reader the idea that his viewpoint and criticisms of Hirschfeld are foundational to what they should take away from the article.

 Sources and References 

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Upon a glance (as taking the time to go through 115 citations and do a deep dive on them would take much longer than I should spend on this assignment), the sources appear to be academic and trustworthy sources. Some of the sources cited are websites that have digitized primary source documents in addition to secondary source analysis.

Are all the sources thorough - i.e., Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Several of the sources are books written recently that are directly about Hirschfeld and his work in Germany. This, as an example, indicates that there is a wealth of recent information for those authors to draw from to be able to write a significant amount on Hirschfeld and his work. There is a variety of articles and primary sources that are also included here.

Are the sources current?

The sources range from the mid- to late-20th century to the present, indicating an extensive range of writing on Hirschfeld. Many of the frequently cited sources within the article are more recent secondary sources with more updated information and sources than the interpretations from the 20th century.

''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?''

It appears that the majority of sources are professors and seasoned academics, journalists, and many of the authors are men. Some stand out as apart of historically marginalized groups. For example, although there are not many women within the citations, Charlotte Wolff is featured as a cited author. Historian Chandak Sengoopta is also featured, whose research is based on India and issues of race and sexuality.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

The answer is a definite yes. I will outline an example below to illustrate how easy it was for me to find a different, reputable source that included the same information that the editor included in a citation.

Within the Mangus Hirschfeld article, footnote 22 cites an article from the Washington Blade about how Hirschfeld's Scientific-Humanitarian Committee collected 6000 signatures from Germans in their fight against paragraph 175. I decided to check the Carleton MacOdrum library website to see if I can find a better source that also cites this information. Within less than 5 minutes using key words with the Committee and "paragraph 175" I found a peer-reviewed article published this year (2023) that also cited a source about the 6000 signatures. The source that this article cites for that information is a book published in 2014 by Edward Ross Dickinson titled, Sex Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914. Edward Ross Dickinson is a historian working at the University of California-Davis whose work concerns European history, including Germany, around the 19th and 20th centuries. His academic background and his reputability seems trustworthy, so I would be more willing to use that source than the Washington Blade article that was used within the Wikipedia page.

Do the links work?

The links featured to other Wikipedia pages, as well as links attached to sources in the references section work fine and are directed to what seem to be the appropriate pages.

Organization and writing quality

Is the article well-written - i.e., is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is definitely well constructed and flows well. There is some noticeable information that is placed awkwardly, but other than that it is well constructed.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Upon an analysis of the sources earlier, I noticed that the editors, linking references to Bauer, spelled his last name wrong in citations 45 through 49. At first, it appeared as if it was an author with a similar last name who also published a book the same year, but the references all refer back to the Heike Bauer book from 2017. This is an easy fix, but I am surprised that nobody had noticed this or fixed it.

is the article well-organized - i.e, broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is well built, and all of the sub-sections of the major sections tie into the major topic that they are apart of within the article. It is also easy to notice that the sub-topics have sub-topics in certain sections as the editors have made the size of the text noticeable to indicate this. The section of "sexual rights activism" illustrates this well.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The article does include images that assist with understanding the topic and each section, with a balance of photos of individuals as well as documents and memorials to Hirschfeld.

are images well-captioned?

Most of the images provide enough "where, when, who" information that you can understand its significance, but not all. One photo is simply described as "Poster advertising Sarah Baartmann" with no further information. The public domain link attached to the photo has the photo file title as "Advertisement for the exhibition of Saartjie Baartman in London" which is a lot more information and alternative spelling. This is something that should be edited.

do all images adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Many of the photos include a "public domain" link attached at the bottom right of the image screen when opened. However, the majority of the rest of them were aquired under various forms of creative commons licensing. According to Wikipedia's own evaluations, it appears as if all of the photos are fine.

are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Most of the images are organized in a way that is appealing to look at. it would likely benefit the article if more photos of individuals were included in the middle section of the article. There are a lot of text-based documents as images that would be balanced well with some non-text images.

 Talk page discussion 

what kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The majority of the conversations about Hirschfeld and his work are regarding sources such as dead links for URLs attached within the article, added information about Hirschfeld that was referenced in the media, and Hirschfeld's wordings in his texts. One user claims that it appears that Hirschfeld was the "First to use racism in a book title" and no editors since the initial post in 2010 have replied to further discuss the topic. Generally, it appears that there is not a lot of discussion going on, but edits have been happening as recently as this week (the week of September 16th, 2023).

''how is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''

The article is valued to be a level 5 vital article, and a class B in content assessment. This means that the article is roughly in the middle in terms of content, and is very high on the list of articles that need to be edited/need contributions. In terms of WikiProjects, this article is apart of six different ones; they are all rated based on their class and significance. For the topics of Biography, Feminism, LGBT studies, Sexology and sexuality and Medicine, the Magnus Hirschfeld article is rated B-class; for Germany, it is rated even lower in C-class. For Sexology and sexuality, Germany, and Medicine, Hirschfeld's article is considered low importance. for Feminism however, he is considered of high importance. It appears that Hirschfeld's article needs work in certain areas but not others, and is considered more valuable within some circles than others.

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

Wikipedia in general on Hirschfeld goes further into depth about his life and the extent of his research beyond our class. We discussed Hirschfeld briefly regarding his contributions and his research in terms of terminology and organizations, but things like his upbringing and his travel experiences were not discussed, nor are they absolutely needed for discussion in class.

 Overall Impressions 

What is the article's overall status?

According to Wikipedia, the article needs a lot of improvement as it is a level 5 in research on academic individuals, amongst nearly 50,000 other articles that need work. The article is also a B class article, so it needs a lot more work in order to be considered a strong article.

What are the article's strengths?

Overall, the article has a significant number of citations and a lot of text. it is a long article, which is impressive and provides a lot of information for the reader about Hirschfeld's life. The article also has many recent texts on Hirschfeld, which is important as it indicates that academics still continue to research and write about him and his work.

How can the article be improved?

The article definitely needs work within the references. As seen above, I was able to find a better citation in barely any time for one of the less trustworthy sources. In addition to this, It would be worth looking into all of the information cited from the Bauer (2017) source, and find that same information from other reputable sources. The overwhelming amount of citations from Bauer may say that he had a lot of important information on Hirschfeld, but it is likely that the same information can be found elsewhere.

''How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e, is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?''

The article is a bit underdeveloped in terms of sources, and some of the sentences are not necessarily 100% relevant. For example, there's a sentence about Hirschfeld being beaten almost to death, and then the section jumps to a completely other topic that does not flow well from that initial sentence. This is found under the "Interwar Period" section under his "Sexual rights activism" main section.

Generally the article reads well, but it has work in terms of what is cited and some of the sentences within the article's sections.