User:Ecl67/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: Gender bias in medical diagnosis
• The topic is relevant to our upcoming group project and is a topic in which I am interested.

Lead

Guiding questions

• 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?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The article begins with a clear definition of gender-biased diagnosing. However, the lead paragraph quickly moves into talking exclusively about women facing gender bias in medicine, without really acknowledging the inverse problem for men or for those who do not identify as male or female. The sentence introducing the discrimination that female patients disproportionally face is well-written and clear, and it is important to acknowledge, as it is a subsection of the article. The article does mainly focus on women throughout, though there is a section titled 'Female Patients.' This lead paragraph should more explicitly acknowledge the focus on women or the text should be amended to include more about gender bias in medicine affecting men. The Lead is rather short and does not give a description of all of the sections.

Content

Guiding questions

The article

• 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?

Content evaluation

Overall there is a lot of content and all of the content present is relevant. However, I think there is opportunity to reorganize this into more concrete sections. For example, gender bias regarding women and mental health is addressed in each section but also has a section of its own (Psychological diagnosis). There is a section titled 'Medical diagnosis' that also addresses mental health diagnosis. These two should be reorganized to more clearly separate the two. The content does seem up to date as there are many citations from within the past few years, and many of the older citations are related to specific studies from the time that are referenced in the article.

I think that there is the opportunity to expand this article to improve it by adding more depth on each subject and also perhaps more clearly splitting the article into gender bias towards women, men, and towards those with different gender identities that are not touched on in this article yet. There is still a lot to be written to create robust sections on the discrimination and bias toward men and toward other gender identities.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

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

Tone and balance evaluation

The article is very focused on women and not on men or other gender identities. I think that unless there is a change in the title or Lead to clarify, these sections must be added in order to make the article neutral and to represent different viewpoints. The final section on 'Avoiding gender bias' is also subjective, though I don't think that many would be against reducing gender bias. I think that more clearly attributing each sentence to a trusted source would make it read more objectively.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Not all of the facts are backed up by sources, and there is even a quote in the final section that is unattributed. Due to the lack of some citations, it sometimes seems like this could get into the issue of "primary research"--the writer is making conclusions of their own based on the cited research--touched upon in one of the training module. This may not be the case, but more clearly attributing and citing sources would eliminate this.

Many of the citations are from within the past few years, which is important especially when referencing scientific studies that could be outdated and replaced with newer findings. Many of the older citations are related to specific studies from the time that are referenced in the article.

Organization

Guiding questions

• 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?

Organization evaluation

Parts of the article are better written than others and some sections could use some improvement. Specifically, the 'History' subsection could be clarified and better-written. The article could also use reorganization of the subtopics. The article would be more clear if split into gender bias towards women, towards men, and towards those with different gender identities. As it is now, it is rather exclusively about women without really acknowledging this sole focus; there is a specific section about female patients even though the whole article is about female patients. Content between the subsections is redundant at the moment and not always fully relevant to the subsection it which it resides. For example, there are separate sections about medical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis but the section on medical diagnosis addresses psychological diagnosis as well. Reorganization and more clear and relevant sub-headers would greatly improve the article as there is already strong content written in the article.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• 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?

Images and media evaluation

There are only two images, both of which could use improved captions. The first image is of a female doctor taking the pulse of a male patient, which is relevant. The second is of a slide with the symptoms of PTSD. Both images have their own linked Wikipedia pages and the first image includes a citation with acknowledgement of where the image is from. The source of the second image is just described as "own work." Finding a list of the symptoms of PTSD from a reputable source like a peer-reviewed journal paper and attributing it would improve this. Also, there is certainly the opportunity to add additional images to add visual interest to the page.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• 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?

Talk page evaluation

The article was part of two Wiki Education projects in 2019. It is rated C-class/Low-importance for WikiProject Sociology and WikiProject Women and Gender Studies and is rated C-class/mid-importance for WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry. The talk page also says that the article was considered for deletion in 2013 but the decision was made to keep it. There is not much discussion on the talk page, but there is a section from a Wikipedian outlining the additions this person planned to make. It was a well-written overview and the person also linked their sandbox. This was definitely in line with the guidelines given in the training modules about commenting on the talk page about what you plan to edit and or add. The other comment said that much of the content within the section on Psychological diagnosis had been copied and pasted from the abstracts of different papers cited. This is another aspect of the article that should be addressed.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• 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?

Overall evaluation

There is a lot of strong content in this article, so expansion, clarification, and reorganization should be the main focuses moving forward. The article is in pretty good shape regarding what is already there but could use some rewriting/editing and some additional citations. However, the article is underdeveloped as it focuses exclusively on the gender bias women face. Adding sections on gender bias towards men and towards those with different gender identities would greatly improve this article.

Optional activity

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: