User:Sibusiso Mahlangu/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will be evaluating an article titled Euthenics.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The reason I chose this is because it sounded similar to eugenics and so I wanted to go deeper into the topic and find out what euthenics is. Euthenics is more about improving health by improving the conditions we find ourselves in. This matters because our health is something we all need to take care of. My preliminary impression was that this would be an article speaking in depth about healthy ways to live.

Evaluate the article
The opening sentence gives a good concise definition of the topic and introduces the reader well to what they will be reading about. However, it does not contain a brief description of the articles major section. The article references the Flynn effect in the lead section but does not seem to expand on it in the rest of the article. There is an article on the Flynn effect referenced however. It is concise and gets to the point.

The content is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. The article is missing a key piece of information, that it speaks about in the lead but does not bring it up later in the article. A section from the Flynn effect story would work well in this article. It does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The tone of the article is somewhat neutral. Throughout the article the tone is balanced and is not heavily biased to one side. However, there is one section of the article that speaks on Euthenics relationship with Eugenics where it seems to be biased towards Euthenics. The article does not try to persuade the reader in a particular direction.

The sources are peer-reviewed and reliable sources. However, the sources are not diverse enough. There are marginalized groups that are sourced like women, but I could not find people of color that were sourced. All the links on the article worked. As a brief overview I believe that it is the best source to get the information.

The article is organized well. It is concise and to the point, easy to read. There are no spelling errors I found but there are areas where commas could be inserted. The sections are broken down well into the major points.

The article contains images that do not support the understanding of the topic. The images are of old believers in Euthenics and not necessarily of the practice of Euthenics. All the images are well-captioned. All the images adhere to the copyright regulations. They are laid out beside the content that they are being referenced in and are therefore visually appealing.

The talk page has a few users that comment on how Eugenics and Euthenics are related more than they are in contrast. The article is not rated too highly based on the conversations on the talk page. It is on several Wikiprojects though. Ethics, sociology and psychology just to name a few.

The overall status of the article is mediocre published article that could get reviewed more. The strengths of the article is that it is largely unbiased and does not persuade the reader to believe one point of view. The structure of the article also helps it flow well from one section to another. It could be improved by having some more diverse sources for different perspectives on the topic. It could also improve its lead section to incorporate more of the main topics that will be brought up. Overall, I feel that the article is underdeveloped and a few changes could help the article be better.