User:Swimfly814/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?

(Gender dysphoria.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The nuances of gender dysphoria and its relation to being trans are vast—as a trans individual, I have some privilege to talk about this topic, but I also think it's important to make sure that all the nuances are covered and that terminology is up to date, words are appropriate, and that we steer away from transmedicalist rhetoric.

Evaluate the article

I'm skeptical about using the term "treatments:" for one, it implies that there is something about being transgender or gender non-conforming that needs to be "fixed," that there is an inherent abnormality about being trans. When it relates to "psychological treatments," perhaps it can be rephrased to "psychological intervention" or "psychological mediation." In this respect, not every change a trans individual elects to undergo is a "biological" treatment—they are not changing their sex.

Also, we may need to update the term "transexualism." While there are individuals who use that term, it is quite outdated and excludes those who choose not to medically transition, bringing up issues of transmedicalist rhetoric that promote the idea that you must undergo surgery and hormone replacement therapy to be considered trans (when the criteria is simply to not resonate with your assigned gender at birth)

Regarding "sex reassignment surgery:" this is an outdated term, and, as stated above, surgery does not alter one's sex. A more appropriate and liked term at present is gender affirming surgery, since it helps align the individual more to their desired body.

I'm also skeptical about the following generalization: "Transgender people assigned male at birth who experience late-onset gender dysphoria will usually be attracted to women and may identify as lesbians or bisexual, while those with early-onset will usually be attracted to men. A similar pattern occurs in those assigned female at birth (AFAB), with those experiencing early-onset GD being most likely to be attracted to women and those with late-onset being most likely to be attracted to men and identify as gay." It seems to be conflating gender and sexuality, which have relatively no correlation to each other. It also doesn't discuss this more: why is this the case? What's the evidence behind it (I'll have to look more into the articles cited themselves); perhaps it is also worth mentioning in this section that gender dysphoria is not needed to be trans; there is a push within the trans community to focus, instead, on gender euphoria (rather than looking at the negatives [which implies an inherent wrongness], there is a push to focus on the feelings that arise when gender expression aligns with identity—this section is all the way at the bottom and could benefit from being moved).

I appreciate the article's mention of those who detransition (the wikipedia page itself doesn't antagonize or berate those who detransition, and highlights the many other factors outside of regret that may cause one to detransition, such as financial concerns, social concerns, and safety).

The "Causes" section seems a little sparse, but there is not much understanding of the causes, so that is understandable. A more comprehensive addition could be beneficial.