User:Raachelc/New sandbox

= Article Evaluation (Oral Contraceptive Pill) =

Evaluating Content
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. However, I feel some subheadings in the article could have used more explanation. The examples were also limited.

Is there anything that distracted you?

I found the "Result on popular culture" heading relevant, but was poorly executed in explaining its true effect. I noticed this section immediately, but mostly that it only listed two examples and that it was clearly lacking.

Is any information out of date?

There were some statistics that don't represent a fully reliable picture, as these facts were updated to a more recent time frame. For example, the sentence "They are currently used by more than 100 million women worldwide and by almost 12 million women in the United States" links a statistic that was until 2002, which is already outdated since it is now 2019. The next fact also after that represents 2012's statistic.

Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved?

The last paragraph of the section that talked about environmental impact was confusing to understand, as it was vague on how contraception was truly directly effective on global warming. It appears to be mostly talking about contraceptives as a whole, and not necessarily just contraceptive pills. More information could be included on the environmental impact of contraceptive pills only versus other contraceptive options. As mentioned earlier, the section "Result on popular culture" was still vague and could use further elaboration. With women empowerment growing, and with new technological advancements of other contraceptive options the last few years, it would be interesting to see more recent examples and if there has been a change in the perspective of using of contraceptive pills.

Evaluating Tone
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

This article did a good job in using a neutral tone and balancing its viewpoints by providing a lot of facts about the pill, especially in the subheading of History where it discusses the controversies with the pill and its health effects. With a lot of controversial on whether the pill is actually good for women or not, the claims don't show bias that may seem like the article is convincing someone to take the pill or not take the pill. It provides evidence for both sides. For example, how the pill can be effective if you consume it correctly, and also how it may not be effective in certain situations. Also, word of choice can make a subtle, but impactful effect, and the article did a good job in using neutral adjectives. For example, the section explains that "birth control users do not have true menstrual periods." really well instead of saying a statement such as "fake periods." Although it mentions each benefit the pill may make, there was still transparency stating that the however the "data varies," and that it may not be a "definitive treatment." It was transparent if there were other better treatment depending on what symptom was to be treated. In the section for side effects, they provide both positive and negative studies, showing that the pill has a wide range of good or bad effects depending on the person and their health history. However, for some side effects, there could have been more studies mentioned than just one. One thing I also noticed was that a lot of the viewpoint was based on the use of contraceptive pills in the US, versus other countries. Majority of the links are based in the US, and for the section "Public availability," and even throughout the article, there is more mention of history and effectiveness in the US.

Evaluating Sources
Check a few citations. Do the links work?

The links I checked worked and directed me to the right information that it represented.

Does the source support the claims in the article?

The sources also support the material covered in the article. However, as mentioned, there were some paragraphs that could have included more reliable and up to date citations. Also, many of the links that provided

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Most of the facts had an appropriate reference with it. However, there were some facts that I would have liked to see a source linked. For example, the sentence "They were first approved for contraceptive use in the United States in 1960..." There were also citations from magazines, such as TIME magazine, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and The New York Times, which may not be reliable resources. However, majority of the facts, especially the scientific facts, were backed up by medical and scientific journals. There was a variety of different journals used, and different authors, so these sources seemed to be neutral, and not biased.

Checking the talk page
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

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

The discussion on the articles also mention some similar observations I had. For example, there was a mention that many of the side effects information has outdated studies, or lacked new studies with new effects and research. With the controversies on the different health effects of the pill, especially looking long-term, it is important that these studies are often updated and corrected according to recent findings. There were also mentions of many sources that were irrelevant, and incorrect information linked to the wrong source. There was a mention of an author that was continuously mentioned, but was not as relevant. Many of these were edited out, which shows that there has been an improvement with the article so far, but this makes me question how much I have personally overlooked.

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

The article is rated as C-class, which is an intermediate article with room for improvement.

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

We have not discussed this topic in class yet so this question may not apply.