User:Whitleyg/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nazi human experimentation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article as it relates to our course topic on the discussion of the Nazi regime's power held over individuals and its interest to me. Nazi human experimentation is a sensitive topic that I am hoping to hear a neutral viewpoint through this article, rather than a argument defending a particular side. This topic helps in identifying more ways in which the Nazi regime implemented power over individuals in regions, including the potential 'consent' versus 'coercion' of those that participated.

Evaluate the article
The article’s lead presents a concise summary of the topic without over telling what will be examined in the further subheadings. The introduction sentence gives detail on what the article is. Although the different sections are not described, a contents table allows the reader to see what will be discussed. The article’s content is relevant to the topic and does not stray from the discussion of Nazi human experimentation. The article presents points of view from multiple sides and concentrates on delivering the information in a neutral tone. The content is up to date, including the latest resources from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and multiple sources from the last twenty years. However, a few sources have “dead links,” where you are unable to access the resource through the link provided.

Further, there is controversy regarding the use of findings listed at the bottom of the article. It is helpful the author(s) of the article provide this knowledge for the reader to be aware of, yet at least five resources fall under this category. While there is valuable information cited from the Nuremberg Tribunals, most of the sources come from secondary sources, reflecting the availability of literature on the topic. The sources are current, where most fall under the realm of being published in the last twenty years. The article uses subheadings to separate the information, providing a straightforward and easy-to-read format. The article does contain images and tables that are well captioned and are formatted in a way that does not make the article or the topic seem overwhelming.

There are conversations within the Talk page discussion regarding the change of edits and correct use of words. For example, using ‘victims’ rather than ‘subjects.’ More recent changes have been made in the year 2020, suggesting edits to improve the neutrality of this article to make it more of an encyclopedia. According to the Talk page, this article has been nominated as a ‘Good article’ twice. However, it has not received the award as it did not meet the criteria at the time.

The current overall status of this article is ‘Former good article nominee.’ As a whole, the article provides concise information that corresponds to the topic and offers a variety of sources for evidence, including many from recent years and reputable sources. This article can be improved by addressing the intricacies of targeted groups and developing further the improvements for neutral tones in the article, especially since the topic can be sensitive for many readers.