User:WISE Physics/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Sexual assault

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 sexual violence and assault is something which has impacted my personal life greatly. Sexual assault disproportionately affects marginalized groups and is ubiquitous across culture and geography. My preliminary impression of this article is that, while it is lengthy, it still misses some major components about sexual assault.

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.)

I found the lead section to be insufficient because it uses part of the term in its definition, leading to ambiguity; specifically, it describes "sexual assault" in terms of "sexually touch[ing]" without actually defining what constitutes said sexual touching.

The content of the article seems to be incomplete. Most obviously, the subsection of sexual assault "by jurisdiction" is clearly lacking as it only includes seven jurisdictions, although there are numerous others. Additionally, the article does not list Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Rape-Trauma Syndrome (RTS) in the section "Emotional and psychological effects," which is one of the most notable psychological impacts of sexual assault. It also failed to consider forcible sodomy which some jurisdictions consider distinct from rape. I did find that it was interesting that the article contained a section titled "Economic effects" because I have never considered this aspect of sexual assault before.

The article's tone and balance were fair with a few exceptions. Specifically, it fails to consider gender outside of a binary. For example, it states that "emergency contraceptive medications are offered to women raped by men," while it should technically state that emergency contraceptives are offered to fertile people with vaginas in the case that they are vaginally penetrated by a penis. This offers a much more neural and inclusive prospective (for example, a trans woman, while a woman, may not need contraception; additionally, rape may not necessarily be vaginal).

This article could benefit from some organizational reconsideration. For example, it could contain one section titled "effects" with subsections psychological/emotional, physical, economic. The section "medical and psychological treatment of victims" could be condensed into the psychological/emotional and physical subsections.

While much of the article does contain citations, there are several instances throughout in which factual claims are made without any supporting citation. Grammatically, the article contains minor errors throughout. The images and media contained in the article were, for the most part, largely ineffective. For example, the image "US troops in Afghanistan hold a 5K run/walk for Sexual Assault Awareness Month" adds little to the article. The graphs included, though they would otherwise be useful, fail to contain axes labels, rendering them unreadable; they also contain no accompanying citation.