User:RavenWritingDesk829/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?

Discrimination against drug addicts

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because it interested me the most. The topic is also very important in reference to human rights/politics/healthcare. I wanted to evaluate it because the information on it will be important for the public.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

Right away, I felt the first sentence of the lead section was poor. “A form of discrimination against people with this disease” feels very limiting. I think the two paragraphs in this section could have been combined into one, as the smaller 2nd paragraph reiterates a lot of what is said in the first paragraph.

Content

The article overall lacks cohesion. It feels like an opinion piece rather than an actual unbiased article. I believe that “institutional bias” as a section should be moved/edited into the “background” section the most. I believe there should be better emphasis on historical examples of drug addict discrimination— like HIV/AIDS in the 80s and even an article related to homelessness in relation to drug biases/stereotypes. I think a section also on popular media could be beneficial, too, as they reinforce a lot of harmful ideas.

Tone and Balance

A significant amount of the article is dedicated to discussing drug addict discrimination characterizations in different continents. These discussions feel very separate from the rest of the article itself. For example, why does the Europe section only focus on Sweden? Additionally, the tone of the use of the label “addict” in the first place can be harmful. There is a heavy need to revise and condense the article, as many ideas repeat themselves between sections.

Sources and References

The “institutional basis” section is missing a significant amount of sources. As for how recent the sources are, they span everywhere. I believe some of the sources are also primary sources rather than secondary ones. While I do think there is a very comprehensive list, I do wish that the sources were more current.

Organization and writing quality

This article reads as very opinionated and biased, which is a great concern. Overall, the article feels like it lacks a consistent tonal and organizational identity. Clean-up is definitely needed. For some reason the drugs and HIV section mentions a website sort of out of nowhere at the end of the paragraph, almost like a “shameless plug”. It reads as unprofessional and random.

Images and Media

There is one picture of a march, and a chart showcasing a prison initiative in the U.S., but I wish there were images of the discrimination itself—like negative representations in media, negative anti-drug ads, etcetera. Overall, more images and media would be helpful.

Talk page and discussion

A lot of discussion was had in 2021 and very few suggestions have been made in 2024/2025. The concern about referring to drug users as “addicts” was mentioned/posted all the way back in 2018. It is very telling that a real change hasn’t been made since then.

Overall Impressions

In conclusion, I feel that this article is more of an afterthought in Wikipedia’s library. The article reads as though there is an excessive amount of dust has collected on top of it. I believe that it needs almost a complete tonal overhaul. For strengths, the article has a strong starting foundation that can be revised and expanded upon. Overall, I get why it is a C-graded article.