User:TechnoFem&DigitalRhet/DisabilityEvaluation

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Disability article.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am evaluating the Disability article for an in-class assignment. Before editing an article, it is important to pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses so you know what needs to be changed.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The introductory sentence is clear and concise, but reads more subjective than it should be. It seems to disregard the social constructions that play into how disabilities are viewed in society. The lead section does not preview the contents of the article-- rather, it highlights a slew of information that the writer deemed most topical. In this way, the lead paragraph in whole seems a bit biased.

Content: The content is topical, but a bit disorganized. There doesn't seem to be a great flow to the article-- all the information seems tossed together at random. The terminology used feels a bit dated and requires updating. While the article does deal with an equity gap, it does not do so in a tasteful way. The entire article reads a bit ableist.

Tone and Balance: The article has a very ableist aura. I wouldn't say that the article is biased per se, but the information is presented in a way that does not feel disability-oriented.

Sources and References: There seem to be a lot of citations, which is good! The citations seem to be from reputable, neutral sources (though it's hard to truly be neutral in a system that is inherently biased). The sources seem pretty current, with quite a few from 2019-2020. A majority of sources seem to be written by researchers-- while credible, the population is not generally made up of disabled individuals.

Organization and writing quality: The article is verbose and poorly organized. There are several grammatical errors throughout.

Images and Media: The images are too small and are not entirely relevant to the article itself. The captions are informative, but that is irrelevant when the images are irrelevant.

Talk page discussion: The Talk Page is dead-- there are no ongoing discussions about the direction of the article. The article is B-Rated and part of several WikiProjects-- luckily it seems to be of high importance! I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see that the article is listed as high importance for medicine-- we have discussed disabilities and "cures" in class.

Overall impressions: The article is strong in that it exists. The article is poorly developed, which means there is much room for development. The structure and content need a drastic makeover to become more informative, organized, and anti-ableist.