User:Foxypolymath/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: Birth control in the United States
• I chose this article to evaluate because birth control is a hot-button issue, and I find this article especially important since access to reliable information regarding birth control and it's history in the United States should be accessible to readers.

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 Lead is only one sentence that is concise to the point of actually lacking important information about the article. There is no brief description of any of the article's main sections in the Lead, and the information included in the Lead consists of sweeping generalizations. The Lead could have more description regarding the article's main sections and its phrasing could be less vague.

Content

Guiding questions:

• 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

The article's content is generally relevant to the topic and focuses on both the history of contraceptives in the United States and also current contraceptive options in America. However, since this article is supposed to focus on birth control in the United States it is unnecessary to have parts of the last paragraph in the section on Birth Control before 20th century. This is because there is a focus on the history and practices in Europe regarding contraceptives during this period as opposed to a focus on the United States. Additionally, there is only a brief mention on the Trump Administration's recent rollback of the birth-control coverage mandate. This should be expanded upon.

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

This article is neutral in tone. In the Current Practices and Influence of religion sections, viewpoints could be expanded upon from both sides (for and against the use of contraceptives). The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to support or oppose the use of birth control in the United States.

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

All of the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source information after observing the citations section. The sources are thorough and current, but I feel there could be added breadth since there are only fourteen sources for a topic that has been widely researched and discussed. The sources are current with most of the sources being published after the year 2000; however, there are two sources from the 1970s and one source that was published in 1926. I checked ten links and they all worked, and sent me to their respective Wikipedia pages.

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

The article is easy to read and relatively concise, but some of the phrasing throughout the article could be cleaned up and improved for further clarity. I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors. The article is not as well-organized it should be. The Influence of religion and Notable organizations sections feel misplaced. Also, the Current practices section could potentially be moved into the last portion of the Government and policy section depending on how this section is restructured.

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

All of the images are relevant to the topic of birth control in the United States, and every image is well-captioned. Additionally, none of the images infringe on Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and the images are displayed in a way that is visually appealing.

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

Within the talk page, there have been a couple of conversations going on regarding this topic. There was a discussion about moving this article to the Family planning in the United States Wikipedia article, and there was also a discussion about how this article originated out of the fact that there was previously just a Birth control movement in the United States article but nothing about the history of contraceptives and contraceptive rights in America. Additionally, there was a discussion about slanted wording in the "Sexual Revolution" section of the article and also specific information about external link modification. This article is rated as a Start-class article of low importance. This article is part of three WikiProjects including the WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive Medicine, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, and WikiProject United States. The Wikipedia article provides less of a slant towards pro-contraception, pro-choice options and seems to provide a more neutral, balanced tone by citing historical instances of opposition to birth control in the United States that I was previously unaware of.

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

Overall, the article is rated as a Start-class article of low importance. The article's strengths include thorough citations of sources after facts, a lack of copyright violations, and some detail when it comes to the "sexual revolution and 'the pill'" section of this article. The article could be improved through some reorganization, addition of detail and expansion of the Lead sentence, and more information regarding the history of birth control in the United States before the 20th century and also during the Trump Administration.

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: [1]