User:Other Friend, Different Hat/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Disability

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
My evaluation of this article is based on the exigence of its subject and the article's need for improvement. The topic of disability is relevant and important to the lives of not only those considered disabled, but likewise every existing member of society who inevitably interacts with disabled individuals.

The Wikipedia article on disability is perhaps the most pertinent educational source on the topic in terms of outreach. While various other sources may be considered more credible—perhaps because they are published by a university or governmental agency or have been peer-reviewed—Wikipedia is certainly the most far-reaching source for most topics, and based on search engine results, this topic is no exception. This article therefore has great potential to inform the way disability is perceived.

My preliminary impression of the article was that it provides a cursory overview of disability in society. While this is somewhat discouraging, it is hardly surprising given that attention to disability is considered a historical anomaly. However, there are many starting points within the article that could support a more detailed account of disability.

I am aware that the article has been edited by my peers since I started reviewing this article in September 2022. Many of their edits are great improvements. Examples include emphasis on the distinction between the medical and social models and the way disability is perceived by society. While I have been comparing the 14 September, 2022 version (the last version before we began our work) to the current version to see what has changed, I am mostly evaluating the article as it currently reads before editing it.

Lead section
The introductory sentence of the lead section is concise, clear, and accurate in its description of the topic. I am aware the one of my peers edited it from "any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or effectively interact with the world around them (socially or materially)" to "the experience of any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or have equitable access within a given society." The change from defining it as a condition to the experience of a condition and the change in syntax from "the world around them" to "a given society" emphasizes that disabled people are not solely responsible for their place within a society that may not allow them access to certain activities. This shifts the focus of the problem from the bodies of disabled individuals onto the entire playing field, and opens up the conversation to a larger audience.

The lead includes a brief description of most of the article's major sections, but there are a few later sections that may need reference. Disability culture and Demographics are not mentioned, for example. The last paragraph in the lead could also be broken up to separate some of the article's major sections and provide some organizational ease for readers.

The lead includes a bit of excess information that is not present in the article. It seems that this information should still be included, but perhaps there should be sections created under Disability culture to cover art and social media, in addition to sports.

The lead section otherwise seems concise and accurate. I appreciate that my peers removed information about physiological functional capacity and disability as a contested concept. These items seemed to exacerbate the medical model and the perception of disabled people as less than whole. However, I noticed that the lead no longer mentions ableism, which seems like a vital topic.

Content
The content within the article seems to cover most aspects of the topic, but there are a few sections that seem underdeveloped. As mentioned in the evaluation of the lead section, there could be more about art and social media within Disability culture, as well as more about ableism. The content otherwise seems relevant and up-to-date, especially after its most recent edits. This topic is certainly related to the historically underrepresented population of disabled individuals, but I wonder whether the Demographics section is missing some information about BIPOC individuals within the disability community.

Tone and Balance
The article is written from a fairly neutral point of view. Before recent edits, it seemed less neutral because it was out-of-date and employed somewhat ableist language. There may be a few phrases that could still be edited for neutrality, but its tone overall is consistent and unbiased. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position, but there is some informal language that could be tightened up to sound for professional.

There may be some underrepresented viewpoints in certain sections, including Disability culture and Demographics, as previously mentioned. Minority and fringe viewpoints seem accurately described; for example, there is detailed information about the preference of people-first vs. identity-first language.

Sources and References
This article seems to reference credible, current, and thorough sources on disability. Most sources were retrieved from governmental or educational sites, and while some were from organizations, most of these organizations were centered around disability in one way or another. Based on a search for key words in the titles of the articles alone, there does seem to be a lack of inclusion of historically marginalized individuals. There are certainly more sources to include. Furthermore, some of the information, primarily in the lead section, lacks proper citation throughout the article.

Organization and writing quality
The organization of the article has been much improved by my peers' edits. It is broken down into a clearly organized framework about disability. However, there are still a few grammatical errors and some unclear language. There are also sections missing content about the topic.

Images and Media
The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic without being too specific about such a broad topic. This is important to emphasize the vast and varying interpretations of the word "disability" without pigeonholing it. There are a few captions missing proper credits and there could be more images in certain sections, including the sections on methods, which could use diagrams or similar graphics. The images could be laid out to be more visually appealing, as well.

Talk page discussion
There aren't many discussions on the article's talk page, but some of them are about redirects of different dialects used to describe the word "disability." This is not something I am super knowledgeable about, although I could do some more research to consider it. It differs from the way we have discussed things in class; it seems like there should be a lot more discussion going on about new ideas and perspectives to disability.

Overall impressions
This article's overall status is subpar. It currently holds a C-class rating despite being a level-3 vital article. Its strengths are its organization and many recent edits to emphasize the difference between the medical and social models, as well as distinctions between people-first and identity-first language. However, it is underdeveloped and there is a lot of missing information that should be shared about disability.