User:Mwestrick1/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: Female reproductive system
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Currently taking courses in both endocrinology and the female body, this article ties both of these topics together.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, it only describes the female anatomy, not the social issues additionally described in the article, such as female genital mutilation.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, as stated above, it does not do this adequately.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead overly describes several portions of the article but not the article in its entirety.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, there is not content that does not belong, but there is a lot of content that could have more detail.  There isn't even passing mention of birth control.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article deals with the female reproductive system, so yes, historically this is a topic that has been misunderstood and misrepresented.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Again, the article is very short and lacks expansion on the information presented.  Additional cultural viewpoints on the female reproductive system would be a welcome and needed expansion.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are very few sourced referenced in this article, which is concerning when one considers the vast amount of information available on this and closely related topics.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources available are reflective of the content present, but again, are quite limited.
 * Are the sources current? Sources are relatively new (the oldest I saw was 2006, the newest is 2020), but again, considering the sheer amounts of information now available and the studies being performed on the female reproductive system, the sources are lacking.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Generally yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that were noted.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, although there could be a broader range of topics covered.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, there is one diagram in particular that is quite well descripted with alphabetical labelling.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Not a whole lot.  The edits on this page are few and far between, it has not been edited since last year.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is part of multiple WikiProjects (biology, anatomy, health, physiology, and sexology/sexuality).  It is rated C-Class, but high or top importance in relation to these projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not a topic that's been discussed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Needs additional citations for verification.
 * What are the article's strengths? This article has a lot to offer.  It's an important topic and it has an excellent framework, it just needs a lot of expansion.
 * How can the article be improved? More sources, expansion on current topics, and the addition of closely related topics that receive no mention.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed.  Considering the enormity of the topic, the amount of information featured is thin.

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: Talk:Female reproductive system