User:Ryleatrudeau/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: Stem cell controversy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. We have discussed aspects of the stem cell controversy in class and read many articles about it recently. I wanted to see how Wikipedia presented information about the controversy as a whole topic.

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 appears to include a satisfactory introductory sentence that concisely describes the concept of the controversy. If anything, I might argue that it is too concise and could provide some information that would better lead a reader into the article's major sections, as it, for example, does not really touch on the idea of different viewpoints being from religious backgrounds, yet that is a section later on in the article. The Lead does not include any information that is not present in further detail in the article.

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
All of the content on the page is relevant to the topic and goes into a satisfactory amount of detail. Everything appears to be up to date. While the article does a good job when covering many of the different questions one could have when reading about and trying to understand the controversy, I believe that the article could benefit from adding more information about some of the hallmark stem-cell studies that have had an impact on the public's opinion, such as those discussed in class. This portion of information would fit nicely in the "Points of controversy" section of the article. The vast majority of the studies discussed in the article are in the "Background Information" section, which are still important, but I believe this addition would help provide more grounds for understanding the controversy as a whole.

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
The article is written in an overall neutral tone, but there were some areas in which I questioned the wording. For example, in describing alternative ways stem-cells are collected (as opposed to from the human fetus), the author asserts that they are "minimally, if at all, controversial". As we know from our discussions in class, this is not necessarily the case and the fact that this is asserted in the Lead makes me think that the author is trying to instill confidence in these alternative methods into a reader's mind. Though this same topic is covered more objectively later on in the article, under "Potential Solutions", I still believe that it is important to cover the controversy with these "solutions" as well in order to appear completely neutral.

If I had no previous knowledge of the topic, I certainly think I would be inclined to have faith in these "solutions" that are proposed by the author. Perhaps changing the subheading to "Proposed Alternatives", or something along those lines, would help alleviate this misrepresentation.

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
Some of the facts in the article are not backed up by a secondary source of information. After looking over the citations, it appears that while many of the sources are very recent. It might be beneficial to include some older sources, especially for the "Background Information" section of the article. Links appear to be in working order.

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
The article is well-written. Though relaying a heavy amount of information about any specific topic generally includes an understandable amount of jargon, the page is reflective of important facts about the controversy at hand and was not riddled with grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized into the different topics that should be discussed in learning about this controversy, but as mentioned before, could include more information to give people a more well-rounded understanding. Perhaps introduction of these new pieces of information would require slight re-arranging to maintain order in the article.

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 are no images included in this article, which certainly makes it look bland and does not assist a reader in following along with the topic. I believe it would be beneficial to add several photos outlining the different methods of collecting stem-cells, perhaps even some from previous studies, in order to assist readers in differentiating the methods in their own head. Additionally, it would be beneficial to include photos/media to help guide a reader through understanding the medical applications of stem-cell therapy, as it is a confusing idea to many.

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
The Talk page opened my eyes to the fact that this page was created as a part of another class assignment, hosted by Duquesne University in spring of 2015. While there is no rank assigned to this article, it is a part of four WikiProjects. The Talk page is riddled with concerns, many of which address the need for re-wording, appearance of bias, and even calling for the removal of a "literally false" statement. Though this statement has since been removed, it was simply replaced with a link to another Wikipedia article - no introduction or summary provided. The Wikipedia page discusses this topic in more basic detail than the way that we have talked about it in class, which means that it is off to a good start, considering its purpose. Our discussions in class weighed more heavily on the "ethics" portion of this controversy, and that alone could contribute to this article, but must not be the entire focus of it. It is very clear that the article has quite a bit of work left in order for it to be completely reliable, and it would probably benefit from alluding to some of the articles that we used to discuss the same topic in our class.

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
From my perspective, the article is certainly not finished. There is still a lot of work to be done in order to properly relay the concept of this controversy to wandering minds, especially those who have little to no background knowledge on the topic. The article's strengths include the fact that it is generally on the right track, it has the general structure and many working links that can be serve as a foundation if many other editors come together and attempt to make it a stronger page.

As previously mentioned, I have several ideas that would improve the quality of this article. The article would benefit from including more substantiated examples of stem-cell research controversy, such as those revolving around "alternative" methods of collecting stem-cells as well. The language of the article needs to be re-evaluated in many areas, as it appears to relay a bias and sometimes is rather brief in explaining something that has many viewpoints or additional details to consider. It would also be nice if this article had photographs to help guide a reader through their acquisition of knowledge. Seeing as many people who are reading about stem-cell controversy as a whole are unlikely to be familiar with the concepts, "need" or applications behind it, these should be the main focus in the article so that they can understand magnitude of the controversy and how it is not only reserved for researchers or policy makers. Having the "Viewpoints" section of this article is certainly a good start, but it could be greatly expanded to better cover the controversy for what it is and not appear to be biased towards the alternative methods of collecting stem-cells throughout.

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: