User:Pktka/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: Sexual differentiation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I think the scientific understanding of sexual differentiation is within the scope of relevant biology to many policy issues today, and that it is a point of contention that affects many other discussions around sex and gender and how they are intertwined with biology. However, this article currently exists in addition to an article entitled "Sexual Differentiation in Humans," and yet remains very human centric. I chose this article because although there is good information, it is stunningly incomplete, as there is definitely recent research on sexual differentiation in mice and other mammals, as well as in birds and other taxa.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic, and it seems broadly focused on all sexual differentiation. The major sections are noted except for brain differentiation, although there is a striking lack of any information on animals other than humans, which is emphasized in the first paragraph where "As male and female individuals develop from embryo into fetuses, into infants, children, adolescents, and eventually into adults" indicates that this article will primarily be about human sexual differentiation. This is the case even though there is an article by that exact name that goes more into depth on humans, and it seems like this article should serve as an overall review of sexual differentiation among different species. Additionally, sexual differentiation is the biological process of development, so I am not quite sure why part of the lead references social customs like hair length, as that is not part of the physical developmental pathway. There is only mention of "other mammals" and then it is never returned to. Some information in the lead seems overly detailed, and could possibly be moved to the section about humans.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic, but is only a small subset of the information that could be relevant/included. Some things like females have XX chromosomes, males have XY chromosomes seem too simplistic for a biology article, and should at least include "typical" or "most" (humans are not wholly dimorphic, as we know). There is more information in the diagrams than there is written out about actual processes and anatomical parts of the sexual differentiation process, even though the article is part of the anatomy WikiProject. The most recent cited content is from 2006, and there is definitely recent research about sexual differentiation in other species that is missing from this page. I do not believe that studies about "heterosexual" VS "homosexual" pre-natal hormone exposure belong on this page. There is also little to no mention of environmental factors or epigenetic regulation playing a role in sexual differentiation.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article does appear neutral, and it seems like effort was made In the lead to not make any biased statements regarding sexual differentiation. Granted, there is not much information. Some of the deletions reported on the Talk page deal with making things less biased e.g. removing a paragraph that seemed to blame political correctness for bad science with respect to studying sex differences.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Many facts do not have inline citations at all. There are zero inline citations in the entire lead. Furthermore, there are citations to pieces that discuss animal modes of sexual differentiation, and yet no information from such works seems to have been incorporated into the body of the piece. Furthermore, convoluted statements like “Sex hormone levels in human male and female fetuses and infants also differ” are presented with no sources. The newest source cited is from 2006, even though there has been much more research on sexual differentiation in recent literature (e.g. a Google Scholar search for sexual differentiation in animals since 2016 returned 36,000 hits). Two of the external links do not work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There is no need for a "humans" and then "humans and other animals" section if both are going to solely be discussing humans. More sections should definitely be added, perhaps by group/taxa of animal discussed. Incompleteness aside, the parts of the article that are written are concise and easy to read. There are only a few grammatical errors, such as "Sex differences range greatly and include physiologically differentiating" (should be physiological differentiation?).

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is a simplified version of the reproductive developmental pathway in humans towards the top of the article, but again, only information about humans is shown. That diagram is informative, but is not discussed within the page, so it does not enhance understanding. The only other image incorporated is a diagram of the Y chromosome with SRY emphasized, which is not the only important/quintessential element of sex differentiation (or determination). The caption for the process of genital differentiation reads more as a disclaimer/additional information than a caption. All images do seem to adhere to the copyright regulations, as both are uploaded through Wikimedia Commons. The image showing the process of sexual differentiation on the genital level cites a textbook as its source.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Conversations about careful wording are happening in the talk page! It also appears that edits have been made to move some things that were previously on this Sexual Differentiation page over to the Sexual Differentiation in humans page. The way we have discussed this topic in class is similar to some of the recent edits, although we have definitely discussed things going on in other organisms besides humans with regards to sexual development and differentiation (and furthermore, cross sexual transfer). As mentioned above, one thing that was removed was claiming female sex as the "default," which is in line with the reality of sex determination that we have dissected in class.

It is a C-Class article, and rated of mid-importance. It is also part of the anatomy WikiProject, which only focuses on humans. Interestingly, the Sexual Differentiation in Humans page is also listed as part of that project.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Much more information should be added about nonhuman animals. One strength of this article is that it does link to more complete articles, such as the page about sex determination systems. Even so, the small amount of information that should be a succinct overview of the topics on “sex determination systems” only center on humans, and do not mention environmental sex determination at all. Overall, this article is underdeveloped. To be fair, the last person to comment on the talk page agreed with me and called for more animal-knowledgable Wikipedians to add information about non-human animals, so I am not the only person to notice this lack of information. Also, so much information needs to be cited, especially claims like “most animals [x].”

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: