User:Roamorin/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: Eugenics
 * I chose this article as I believe this is an ethical issue that has been a part of history. However, it is not something that is over and done; with recent technological advances in DNA sequencing it has become relevant again. While attempting to avoid some diseases through genetic testing, it is really important to star considering how far can we go, which is why this still remains an important ethical issue.

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article is very well written and thought out. It starts off with a definition of the term "Eugenics", that is clear, concise and easy to follow. It then delves deep into the history of this term. This part could use some trimming, I definitely believe it doesn't need to be so detailed when describing all the sections. However, it does include an overview of almost everything and it is very easy to read.

Content evaluation
The content of the article seems quite relevant to the issue at hand. It includes: history, definitions, types of eugenics, ethical issues surround it and their current relevancy, and even known advocates/opposers for this concept. It even includes terms that are related and might be relevant to someone doing research. The content seems to be quite up to date and there doesn't seem to be anything missing.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems to be as neutral as it can get. It is important to mention that the people working on this article are not over-representing one point of view, as both opposition and endorsements are represented in the article. The overall tone of the article does seem to lead more on the side of being against it, however, that might be because it is something that has been historically used in terrible situations and this might tint our opinions about it. Because of our previous knowledge about issues such as this it is hard to say if the article is totally unbiased, as our personal opinions might get in the way of evaluating this section.

Sources and references evaluation
While the content and the tone of the article are truly well thought out, sourcing seems to be lacking in comparison. Quite a few citations "are needed", or "original research", which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. This can be bad as it can lead to editors monopolizing the article with their own beliefs without any reliable source to back it up. The rest of the citations, however, seemed to be current and up to date.

Organization evaluation
The article is quite clear and concise. I would say it is not unnecessarily long, and it broken down into relevant parts. One thing I would definitely change, however, is the order of some of the sections. It doesn't seem to me that it flows very naturally. Specifically the Ethics section, which I believe should be in some way tied into the history part of the article in some way, or at least some concepts of the relevancy of the issue nowadays needs to be brought back into the ethics section.

Images and media evaluation
This article is really lacking any diagrams that help the reader to understand the topic more. It does include pictures from different historical figures / buildings that might help the reader visualize those involved, if needed. The pictures however, seem to be well-captioned and are laid out in a way that doesn't interfere with the reading and seems aesthetically pleasing.

Talk page evaluation
Many things are discussed in the talk page. Because this is an issue that calls for a lot of ethical arguments, discussions about the inclusion/exclusion of some terms, such as "alternative medicine" into eugenics are very prevalent. Additionally, other discussed things include different examples that might or might not qualify as eugenics that different editors would like to add into the article. This article used to be a good article but it has now been removed, and it appears to be highly controversial with some things still in dispute. The article is also of interest to some WikiProjects such as: WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Genetics, amongst others.

Overall evaluation
Overall the article seems to be in good standing. However, when looking at the Talk page, I realized how controversial this topic is and how many things in the article are being disputed by different editors. This brings light to another side of Wikipedia that I didn't know. This article definitely seems very strong regarding the historical side of it, however it could use a few more examples of Eugenics. I think the article could also benefit from adding in sections that are more current. All in all, I would say the article seems to be well-developed, not underdeveloped but definitely not poorly developed either.

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: