 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
editWhy you have chosen this article to evaluate?
editMy group for our class are looking into "internalized ableism" and we wanted to look at this page first in order to determine whether it was a good fit to just add to or if we should create a whole new page.
Evaluate the article
edit(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The article has a good lead section and describes the concept of "ableism" well. There may be some missing content on the historical section in regards to examples of ableism in the United States. The fight for the ADA and disabled activists could be expanded upon in greater detail to highlight the difficulties faced advocating for disability due to the prevalence of ableism in society. The tone is neutral and balanced and crucially explains a difficult topic in a level manner which makes it easy to consume and learn. It does not blame or implicate groups in society as perpetuators of ableism but rather explains historical context that has contributed to it in a factual and unbiased manner. The healthcare section is well fleshed out and contains recent examples of ableism including those from the COVID-19 pandemic era. I think the sources are good and the ones that I tried out worked. I think they are of the academic caliber that is requested but also provide marginalized perspectives. The article is well organized but the issue that we are debating is whether or not internalized ableism warrants its own section or even its own page because of the magnitude it holds as a topic when disabled perspectives are concerned. The talk page is a little bit limited and mostly contains conversations about refiling of the article and funneling of different topics into the ableism category. The article is a level-5 high importance article with a c-class rating. I think that this article could use some cleaning up and the expansion of the "internalized ableism" section is also on my mind, but in general, the article is useful for people to learn more about ableism.