User:Sdekk13/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: (hysterectomy)
 * I thought this article would be interesting because when we were studying about hysteria a lot of theories about the diagnosis were linked to the uterus and movement of the uterus.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, the first sentence clearly defines the subject.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it mentions that there are risks and the alternatives for the surgery.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It mentions the main reasons that hysterectomy are performed which is not elsewhere in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is appropriate in length and detail for the page although it could summarize more thoroughly what it will touch on later.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes very relevant, although it takes multiple avenues in the risks and affects of hysterectomies.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * the content seems up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The section on incidence of hysterectomies does not seem super relevant to this page, but if the history of the surgery was added then it would make more sense.

Content evaluation
Overall there is a strong amount of concise and relevant information. There are more avenues this wikipedia page could go on but they would move away from the main points of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes the article seems neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article does not seem heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is far more information about this surgery in the US, so it is has a heavily weighted North American perspective compared to developing countries or even other developed countries.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the article is very balanced about presenting just factual information and not opinions about which surgery is better than others.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does a very good job presenting this information fairly and using only factual evidence.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Almost all of the sentences have links attached most of which are primary literature.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources are thorough and represent a lot of research on the different methods.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The article seems to be updated as there are articles from 2020 in the sources listed.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * the links do work.

Sources and references evaluation
I am satisfied with the sources used in this article and the citations. They are current and thorough.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * easy to read although the medical terminology may make it difficult for some.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article makes sense and is easily to follow. There is even a table to more simply present pros and cons of certain surgery.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are several images of certain procedures and before and after pictures.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not all the images are well captioned, some just state the word hysterectomy without clarifying what is actually happening in the picture.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not really, pushed to the right.

Images and media evaluation
Some of the pictures are quite graphic and not fully explained in the captions but they are helpful.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There seems to be conversations about the lack of LGBTQ representation in this article as well as refinements about the language used to define certain variables, probably to keep them as up to date as possible.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated B class for reproductive rights, LGBT studies (start-class) and women's health
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't discussed this phenomenon in class specifically. This article is different because it comes from purely a medical perspective instead of mentioning the history and relevance of this surgery to other disciplines.

Talk page evaluation
Seems to be pretty rudimentary in terms of acknowledging the way this topic plays into women's health and LGBTQ studies.

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
I like that this article doesn't shy away from using medical terminology because it shows that they are not attempting to oversimplify information and lose key details. Still this can also be a negative because this makes the topic harder to understand for the average reader. The article could be improved by adding more context to the subject (uterus role in history and in medicine) but perhaps there is another wikipedia page that has focused more on that. The article has a long list of references and does a good job supporting its text with up to date content.

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: