User:Elysegraham/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because we have been discussing it for the past week in class, and I wanted to see how accurately my understanding of the information aligned with what was within the Wikipedia article. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is an important issue in medical history and reminds us of the importance of patient rights in modern medicine and research. Overall, this article seems to be very well organized and provide clear, concise information relating to the controversy.

Evaluate the 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?
  • Yes
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
  • No
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It has enough detail for the reader to fully understand, and is presented concisely.

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?
  • Yes
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • The article does address topics related to racism and the medical mistreatment of minority populations (in this specific circumstance, African American men).

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?
  • Yes, for the most part.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
  • I do not think there are many minority views in this case, but the author does a great job of noting that racism had influenced medical beliefs when this study first began and medical practices no longer accept these beliefs.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, it simply provides the information needed to fully understand the topic.

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?
  • Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, and yes
• 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.)
  • Most of this author's sources are peer-reviewed, and the source page is well organized with many different categories of sources. I think these sources altogether make a solid reference section.
  • No, these sources are just as good as any other peer-reviewed sources I have found.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

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?
  • Yes
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, some could be moved to make the page more visually appealing though.

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?
  • The conversations deal with requesting move edits, correcting some quotes that were entered incorrectly, and corrections on tone throughout the article.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This article is a B-class article.
  • Yes, this article is part of seven WikiProjects.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • This page gave a more detailed overarching view of the study and it's implications in modern medical ethics and biomedical research, while in class we focused more on viewing historical sources that focused on the details of the study itself.

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • This article includes accurate and well organized information, but still has improvements to be made - mostly in tone. B rating overall, some of the WikiProjects this article is part of have it as a B-class or C-class high importance article.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • It is very well organized and provides accurate information.
• How can the article be improved?
  • Some tone changes need to be made throughout to make it more neutral. (Overall, though, the topic does seem to be presented neutrally.)
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • This is a very well-developed article. There may be some connections to other bioethics studies that could be made throughout the article to further the reader's understanding of human-based medical research in the United States.