User:TanzilF/Evaluate an Article

Hello! I am a student at the University of Oklahoma.

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article Guatemala Syphilis Experiments.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article not only because it was assigned to my group during class, but that it is a historical anecdote representative of the failures of the Public Health Service in the United States. The article itself in mildly organized but focuses more on the people involved rather than the topic at hand.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article serves as a good opener to provide a concise overview of the topic to the readers. While the introductory sentence defines the essence of the article clearly, the following sentences in the lead section are direct, yet some parts lack proper citations for the claims made. The section is concise and covers many of the important parts of the article, yet included information, such as that about the "serology studies" that is not later elaborated.

Most of the information in the article is up-to-date. However, some sections refer to information that was last updated in 2017, especially in the "Presidential Commission... Investigation" section. The article also largely focuses on the study clinicians over the study and the participants.

Tone wise, the article appears to be neutral. But the overrepresentation of the claims made by the study's clinicians the U.S. Public Health Service and officials overshadow the reaction and response of the Guatemalan people and government.

The article contains information that is mostly attached to the proper and relevant sources. However, there is some information that requires citations. While the sources themselves are thorough, some information is pulled directly from primary resources, such as Reference 7, which is a summary article published by the Department of Health & Human Services.

The organization and writing quality is clear and professional. Most of the article is easy to read, yet there are some sentences that have a convoluted structure. The article is broken down into sections properly to reflect on the major points of the topic.

The article includes two pictures, only one of which is relevant to the aftermath of the study. The images are almost tiny and overlooked, but include relevant captions. However, the caption for the first image has a convoluted caption and does not indicate relevance to the topic discussed, i.e. "Tuskegee-syphilis-study doctor" instead of the name of the correct study clinician.

The Talk page discussion is centered on the rewording the convoluted sentences present in some sections. Past discussions focused on centralizing the information on a neutral basis, since past versions of the article seemingly included heavily biased sentences. The article is a part of several WikiProjects and was featured of the Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 October 2010.

While there is no overall rating of the article itself, it is associated with other WikiProjects with Start-Class rating with mid to low importance. The article goes in depth about the historical context and the study and the clinicians, with mostly cited information and neutrality. However some parts of the article are uncited, and left unelaborated. I would consider this article well-developed but partially complete.