User:Renabee/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
FemTech

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the FemTech article because the topic caught my attention and I think it's pretty interesting. It matters a lot because of the lack of care or respect women receive, especially when it comes to their health. Their health issues either aren't taken seriously or there's a rush to diagnose them when there's a bigger underlying issue. To have technology specifically for women meant to help them is huge and has had an immensely positive impact, though there have been some issues as well. My preliminary impression was for a starting page, the current information listed is pretty solid and is a good point to start off of and add to the article. I was also surprised, because when I first looked through the article, it said it was nominated to be deleted back in 2017 but it ended up staying. Though it's just a starting page, it's an important topic and I'm surprised it was almost deleted.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead section of the article just gives the definition of FemTech and the overview simply states the field of FemTech is new. There isn't much information provided, and even though it's simply an introduction, more details can be added. A pattern I've noticed with Wikipedia articles is that the lead section, though it's not extremely long, is decent in length and provides a lot of important information about the article as a whole and is more than just a simple overview.

Content


 * The content currently on the article is relevant to the topic, but it's not completely up-to-date. The most recent edit was made during September of this year, but in terms of updating the content itself to reflect the most recent information, those changes haven't been made.

Tone and Balance


 * For the most part, the article is neutral, but according to a warning on the page, part of the content is written like an advertisement, which would need to be fixed. The article doesn't try to sway the reader in terms of opinion, but it does seem to be advertising FemTech as a whole instead of focusing on the facts in certain parts of the article, mainly the Venture capital investments section.

Sources and References


 * There are two links that don't work, but every other link listed in References does work. The most recent source is from 2021, which isn't that old, but there are several sources on FemTech from 2022 as well as 2023, and more are being published as the year goes on. A good amount of sources are journal articles that have been peer reviewed, but some haven't been backed by secondary sources. There are also references that seem to be missing for topics mentioned in the article.

Organization and writing quality


 * Though there isn't much information, the article is organized into 5 sections and the information in those sections are related to each category. There aren't any spelling errors and it is easy to read, but the main thing that needs to be worked on is finishing where some writing hasn't been finished, which again is mainly the Venture capital investments section. That section could also be replaced based on newer studies that have been published since this page was created, so it could also be replaced with something else, possibly a focus on femtech in women's health

Images and Media


 * There aren't any images included in the article, so that's another thing that can be adjusted.

Talk page discussion


 * The article is part of the Technology, Women, and Feminism WikiProjects. The talk page hasn't been used since 2019, but there were two good additions, including the Venture capital investments section and a suggestion regarding the formatting, specifically splitting up information into product categories.

Overall impressions


 * The overall status of the article is incomplete, but it's also a start page, so it's not that alarming. The current strength of the article is the ethics section. It brings up an important point about the opposing side of FemTech which can be expanded on and there are several recent sources that have been published discussing the same topic. I would say the article is underdeveloped, but that can quickly change with a few updates to the content. To be improved, the main thing would be to add more information and use up-to-date resources.

Dr. C's comments
Great work on this assessment. Your plan to (1) add more information and (2) use more up to date resources is a good one. You could also plan to remove the links that do not work and to replace them with functional references. You might also want to focus some of your effort on adding some detail to the Introduction section. I also like your suggestion of updating or replacing the Venture capital investments section, especially if it reads like an advertisement. We can talk about prioritizing and choosing which of these areas to focus on in class on Thursday, but I think you've got some great material to work with here.