User:Tolerg1/Evaluate an Article

1Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Abuse During Childbirth
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The article could use some work to make it a better resource, there was research that had been done on this topic in the academic world, it was an interesting topic, and the topic fit with our majors. It was obvious that there was much more information that could be added. There was only a section talking about what abuse during childbirth is and then one labeled countries detailing which countries it is most common in and that's it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first and second sentence set up the topic and provide some introduction.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead only includes a description of what the topic is. The following section is labeled "Countries", and not once in the lead does it mention any country except for the last sentence where it lists 3 countries that the practice is illegal in.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead sets up the article to contain much more information than the rest of the article contains. 90% of what is mention in the lead is not talked about again in the rest of the article, which is not much.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead contains a good amount of detail about the topic, but the information that follows the lead does not elaborate on the detail that is provided. The next topic in the article is just labeled "Countries" where they mention North America, Mexico, and Tanzania.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead contains a good amount of detail about the topic, but the information that follows the lead does not elaborate on the detail that is provided. The next topic in the article is just labeled "Countries" where they mention North America, Mexico, and Tanzania.
 * The lead contains a good amount of detail about the topic, but the information that follows the lead does not elaborate on the detail that is provided. The next topic in the article is just labeled "Countries" where they mention North America, Mexico, and Tanzania.

Lead evaluation
The lead of the article provides an introduction to the topic of abuse during childbirth. The lead provides details about what the remainder of the article covers and more, but that is due to the fact that the actual article has very few actual sections. The lead provides a large amount of information that is not elaborated on later in the article and provides a good amount of detail pertaining to the subject matter. Overall the lead of this article contains a good amount of detail, but is not the most well written work. There are a lot of improvements that could be made, but there is a good basis from which we can start working on the article. I feel that we can really build up and improve sentence structure and grammar.

+

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The little amount of content that the article contains does pertain to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The information is a little dated, but not much considering the amount of research that had been done on the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a lot of content that is missing, both content that is explored in the lead and other content that is relevant to the article that is not present at all.
 * There is a lot of content that is missing, both content that is explored in the lead and other content that is relevant to the article that is not present at all.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is where the article is mainly lacking. The article contains only one section, which is lacking in the information that it provides. The information that is provided is a little dated, and with a subject matter that is still happening today that makes the article dated. There is a large amount of content that is missing from this article and a large amount of content that could be expanded upon, both from the information that is provided in the lead and other information that could be obtained through research. Overall, the content of this article in its current state is very minimal and has much room for expansion. The content that is present isn't organized very well. There are a few different sentences that state a major fact or topic and they're not elaborated on. It doesn't flow very well.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article reads as being mostly neutral, but with a topic such as this it is difficult to portray it in a way that seems to be completely unbiased. There are not a lot of people out there that agree with abusing women during childbirth.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are some claims that are not completely substantiated, but there is usually some form of counter argument that provides context for the argument.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a lack of representation of a medical viewpoint throughout the article, and there seems to be a large amount of the experience of women. While this is useful information to include, it would be better to balance this out with the medical perspective on the operations that were performed.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article highlights the issue of the topic, which is difficult to do in a way that does not sound attacking. I did think that they did a decent job coming at the issue with facts and less like they were picking a side. There wasn't much elaboration which I attribute to the lack of opinion I saw. It was just fact after fact after fact.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems to be mainly neutral, but the struggle that the article has comes from the topic. The topic is a difficult topic to talk about without sounding as if the author is attacking one group for their actions during childbirth. The article draws heavily on information that is provided by the women in childbirth's perspective, but lacks a perspective from the medical area. An addition of a new perspective would go a long way to making this article sound more neutral. There does not seem to be overt attempts to persuade the reader to one viewpoint or another, again the difficult seems to come from how to portray the topic. Overall, the article seems to be fairly neutral, but does not provide many viewpoints on the subject. The addition of more viewpoint and more elabration on the viewpoints that are present would help this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The majority of the facts are backed up by secondary sources, but not all.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources provide some of the literature that is available on the topic, but do not provide the full picture.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of the sources on the article are current, some are older. I would say that of the existing sources there is a decent balance between older and newer information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that are there seem to work: however, there are some sources that do not have a link, and the majority of the sources seem to be from the same websites. The words or topics they chose to link are ones I feel they didn't need to as much as others. There were many other words I felt could've used some further explaining.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources that are provided in the article are a good start to the research, and provide an insight into the basic information pertaining to the topic. Some of the sources are current, with some being older allowing for a balance between new and old. The sources all seem to be from the same few websites, which could be an issue with providing a good amount of different information on the topic. Overall, I would say that the sources that are present are good preliminary sources, but they are not the authority on the subject and more need to be added to be able to provide a full picture of the topic.They mention a lot of names of people who did research, but they didn't list their profession, specialty, or titles if they had one. It was "this person did this and that person researched that", there was no link on their names or to any study or work they did.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is not very easy to read, as some of the sentences do not make sense. They don't go well with one another so the flow is bad. Facts are stated in one sentence and the following sentence is a whole new topic there is no explanation.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article contains multiple grammatical errors throughout. Some of the sentences have missing words that would make it make more sense.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article only contains one major section, so it is not broken down to reflect the major parts of the topic. The section that does follow talks very little about information mentioned in the main section. If they only wanted a brief article with 2 sections there were probably 20 other things they could've talked about that were way more important than what they added about countries, which wasn't very good information to begin with.

Organization evaluation
The article's organization in its present state is very poor. It is not very easy to read, as there are multiple sentences that do not make much sense and do not seem to contribute to the topic as a whole. There are multiple grammatical errors throughout what has been written, further enhancing the problems that are present. There is only one major section besides the lead present in the article. Overall, the article is not very well organized, and would need to have the existing sections rewritten and have much more information and sections added to it in order for it to be a better article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not contain any images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article does not contain any images at all. In order for this article to be improved, adding images would help. There are no medical charts or pictures of the children or mothers who experience this.

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 is only one statement on the talk page, and the statement is not contributing to the conversation on the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as a start class. It is a part of multiple wikiprojects, including Anthropology, ethnic groups, feminism, gender studies, human rights, medicine, sexuality, women's history, and women's health
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * WE have not really discussed this topic in class, but in relation to gender wikipedia discusses it in similar ways.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page of this article is very minimal. There is only one comment on the talk page and it does not contribute to the conversation around this topic. The article is rated as a start class, and it is a part of multiple Wikiprojects, which include, Anthropology, ethnic groups, feminism, gender studies, human rights, medicine, sexuality, women's history, and women's health. While there is not much happening on the talk page of this article, it is acknowledged that is an issue that warrants a more fleshed out and developed article. The single comment also highlights the obvious grammar issues, but other than that the comment is more directed towards the topic itself instead of the validity of the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Not sure what you mean by status. It is rated as a start page.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * There are a lot of facts mentioned and the main section is long enough to find a decent intro to the topic by giving a lot of information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Unfortunately, the information they do give lacks elaboration. Everything they mention at the beginning is neglected in the rest of the article so the reader can't really learn much.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article itself is under developed as well as poorly developed.

Overall evaluation
There is so much that it lacks and what is there isn't the best and needs more depth. I think my partner and I can do a lot to improve this article. I saw on the talk page that the article was written by two other students about 2 years ago as a course assignment so I think this is a good one for us to edit because there is so much to build on. When I read the article I see it as an outline or a rough draft that can use a lot of work.

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: