User:Alexjacullo/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

STEM pipeline

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because as a female STEM student about to enter the workforce full-time as a young professional in STEM, I am very invested in the progress of STEM education initiatives. Also, I think there has been a big push lately to expand the access of STEM educational programs at earlier ages and among communities that may be lacking in STEM representation, such as women, BIPOC, and LGBTQ+ people. In general, I have considered the STEM pipeline to be an important factor in addressing these inequities; however, very recently I began to see criticisms of the STEM pipeline in this regard.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The Lead Section is very concise and starts with an adequate introductory sentence that briefly and succinctly describes the topic. The Lead Section does not include any kind of overview of the sections and content of the article.

The overall content of the article is relevant to the topic, but the information is based on sources that are somewhat outdated, though not drastically so. The article addresses a significant equity gap of women and minorities in STEM, which have traditionally been white male-dominated fields. There are definitely areas where content is lacking and could be more fully developed. For example, I would probably adjust the Public reactions section to capture and incorporate more of the tangible criticisms that have begun to take hold in recent years. There is a predominant focus on the STEM pipeline in the secondary education setting, so inclusion of information regarding initiatives targeted toward younger children might be beneficial as well.

There does not appear to be any glaring tone issues associated with the content of the article as it reads rather neutral from my perspective. Similarly, no persuasion or overtly biased statements seem to be present throughout the article and there is information incorporated that encapsulates differing sides of the issue.

Information is consistently cited with sources throughout the article and there appears to be a sampling of sources pulled from and no overt reliance on a single source. Sources are relatively current but there likely could be some beneficial updating. There are some news articles that could probably be replaced by peer-reviewed papers. A lot of the references seem to be in support of one side from the outset, which is something to keep in consideration as potential sources of bias not through tone but rather inherently from the information used to synthesize and develop the original content. There are quite a few reference links that do not work or lead to pages that no longer exist which is an issue.

Overall, the article is pretty well-written and concise with no obvious issues of convention, spelling, punctuation, etc. The organization of the article makes sense but is a bit lacking in my opinion and the sections maybe are not as accurately or effectively labeled as they could be.

There are no images or other forms of media included in the article at this point.

The talk page is not heavily populated but there are a couple of objects touched upon. One of these issues involves a conflict of interest by a user proposing an edit and looking for feedback on the appropriateness of this addition; it was ultimately declined due to the disclosed conflict of interest. Another interaction had to do with a concept that was declined due to its lack of traction and general acceptance. This article is associated with a few different WikiProjects including Education, Science, Engineering, Technology but it does not have a rating from any of these WikiProjects.

After evaluating the different aspects of this article, I would say overall it has a solid start and scope of content but is lacking in some detail and expansion. Additionally, the references and sources are definitely areas that can be improved upon, as well as general updating of information. The article takes a good approach of giving a general overview of the topic and incorporating expansion in certain areas. I would argue that while it is well-developed as a starting basis, it is more generally underdeveloped. Adding to the background/history of the STEM pipeline initiative would be advantageous, plus diversifying the critiques/criticisms section.