User:Wikifaedia/Evaluate an Article
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose the topic of invisible disability as it is something that I have firsthand experience with and I believe it is underrepresented in general society, regardless of the fact that there are a large number of individuals who struggle with invisible disabilities. The article is missing information regarding to the worldview of the topic, and solely focuses on the United States. It is important for people to be educated on these topics and to know their rights, even if they are on the opposite side of the world.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic. This section does describe the article’s largest section, the impact of invisible disabilities, as well as the following section on prevalence, but it does not mention legal protection or responses. For the time being, this is alright as these sections are short. However, they are flagged by Wikipedia, stating they need expansion, so this will have to be evaluated later. The lead section lists a number of conditions that are considered to be invisible disabilities, where this is not necessarily mentioned outside of this section besides in referencing specific scenarios. Overall, the lead section is generally concise, but there are tweaks that can be made.
Content
The article’s content is relevant to the topic, as well as generally up to date. In terms of legal protections and campaigns, more research can be done to find recent information on these topics. There is a large number of content missing that focuses on the topic in countries outside of the United States. The only other country with any amount of coverage is the United Kingdom. This is a top priority problem for this article that has to be addressed. The article does deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps, as it focuses on an underrepresented population.
Tone and Balance
The article has a neutral point of view and there does not appear to be any claims that are biased toward a particular position. There are likely a number of invisible disabilities not represented on this page. The article lacks a large amount of international representation. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to be in favor of or against any position.
Sources and References
There are a number of facts stated in the article, particularly in the lead section, that do not have a direct reference - a majority of these are general/common knowledge. Source #11 does not have a working link and takes the user to a ‘page not found’ screen. Source #12 needs a full citation. The section on prevalence includes sources 10 through 12, however all these sources are at least ten years, with source #12 dating to 2002. These are all statistics that are not necessarily inaccurate, but are not updated. If no new sources are accessible, this data should be dated at the least. I believe the articles, along with their authors are a diverse set, but as more resources are needed for worldwide information, that diversity will grow.
Organization and writing quality
The article is well-written, concise, and easy to read. There are a few minor grammatical errors throughout the writing. It is generally well-organized, but there are some instances where tweaking the layout would be beneficial. More sections may be needed when introducing new information.
Images and Media
The article only includes one image that pertains to the topic. As this may be a hard topic to represent visually hence the ‘invisibility’ aspect, it is still important to add alternate media to the page that enhance understanding of the topic. This image includes a well-written caption, adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations, and is positioned in a decent manner compared to the layout of the other article elements.
Talk page discussion
The talk page of this article is not very active, the most recent post from approximately two years ago discussed an extra paragraph that could be added in, along with sources that primarily focused on outside the United States. This article was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but did not meet the criteria at the time. There was also the issue being that the nominator was a large contributor to this article. The article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Disability, Medicine, Autism, Sociology, and Psychology.
Overall Impressions
Overall, this article is easy-to-read and well-formatted, but there is definitely work to be done in terms of restructuring and adding new information that is up to date, as well as centered around the worldview of invisible disability, rather than how it is currently American-centered. New statistics should be researched and updated. The sections, ‘Legal protections’ and ‘Responses’ need to be expanded on. On the basis of how completed the article is, it is under-developed.