User:GenkiNoEarthling/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?[edit]

Vaginoplasty

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

I'm about to undergo the procedure of vaginoplasty myself this coming July for gender-affirming purposes, so I went to take a look at the Wikipedia entry on the surgery. The article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and in my opinion are missing key information.

Evaluate the article[edit]

Lead section:

+ The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence.

– However, it does not correspond well with the various sections of the article and includes information that is not present in the main article.

– It is excessively detailed on why vaginoplasty is needed, which I think could be put into a separate section on its own.

Content:

– The article glosses over vaginoplasty for gender-affirming purposes in the lead section and relegates it under "techniques," without contextual explanation for the need and usage of gender-affirming vaginoplasty in a coherent manner, hence leaving an equity gap in representation. It appears as if the writers have been consciously avoiding in-depth discussions of transgender patients: the history section makes no mention of trans identity even though all the figures it has listed are trans.

– The content is not quite up-to-date and does not reflect recent research and technical breakthroughs in vaginoplasty.

– There is no mention of the psychological reasons in seeking such surgery as well as the psychological effect of receiving the surgery. This is particularly striking in the sub-section about elective vaginoplasty, where it fails to adequately acknowledge the oppressive role of patriarchal norms and pornography in driving women to seek such risky procedures.

– The article does not talk about the benefits of vaginoplasty, which I believe is crucial especially for gender-diverse patients, but even for candidates in general there is only mention of risks and complications but not of the procedure's positive outcomes.

Tone and Balance:

+ The article generally maintains a matter-of-fact tone.

– However, it appears biased against people who do elective vaginoplasty without recognizing the root cause of their demand––women's body dysmorphia due to unrealistic social expectations.

Sources and References:

+ The article is generally backed up by peer-reviewed research.

– The references, however, can be quite dated, and the quality of sources on transgender people could be improved from the perspective of someone who has studied gender and sexuality more extensively in an academic setting.

Organization and Writing Quality:

– It is extremely poorly organized; information does not flow well from one section to another and is not ordered according to intuition, logic, or relative importance, which can confuse the reader.

– It's also full of grammatical and expression errors, resulting in a bumpy read.

Image and Media:

+ Relevant media is included.

– Images are not laid out in a visually appealing way, squeezing the words into narrow columns that are hard to read given the density of links and medical information.

Talk Page:

The talk page is sparsely populated and has not been active since 2009. Looking at the history bar, trans identity proves to be a point of controversy multiple times, as different editors go back and forth on terminology, inclusion of new material, and source eligibility.

Overall Impression:

The article does not appear well-developed and up-to-date on reflecting the state of vaginoplasty today. More information is needed to contextualize the procedure's usage, present its outcomes, and highlight its interplay with social, biological, and psychological factors.

***very well done, Sida, but please confirm for me that you will be pursuing this article and not the Chinese medicine one you spoke of.