User:104.12.44.251/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article[edit]
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article:Drug overdose
- I chose this article because it pertains to a very serious issue in medicine and I am interested in evaluating the validity of this topic on Wikipedia to be certain that users are not spreading misinformation.
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes the user introduces the topic in a straightforward and understandable manner.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? the lead lacks a description of the upcoming sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?The lead is very short, it only introduces the topic without further explaining the breakdown of the article or including any additional information referenced thereafter.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, perhaps it needs further details.
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? somewhat, it lacks a lot of information.
- Is the content up-to-date?the latest reference is from 2017
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? the first section titled classification is a bit misleading
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the article neutral?overall the article remains neutral
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? a few facts are not cited
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current? the latest source is from 2017, relatively recent
- Check a few links. Do they work? some lead to pages that aren't found
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? it is easy to read and concise
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? it's
Organization evaluation[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
- Are images well-captioned? yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes
Images and media evaluation[edit]
Checking the talk page[edit]
Guiding questions:
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? a lot of questions and discussions about what's included within the article
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? is rated b class and high importance
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? topics open for discussion in class allows students to comment on their ideas and opinions, to derive their own conclusions based on their findings. On the other hand, Wikipedia's topics are constructed solely on facts supported by significant citations.
Talk page evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- What is the article's overall status? it has room for improvement, it is a class b article
- What are the article's strengths? very concise and easy to understand, while remaining objective.
- How can the article be improved? More details and sections
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?thus far the article has good quality but it's lacking information
Overall evaluation[edit]
Optional activity[edit]
- 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 ~~~~Could the introduction contain a brief mention of each section?
- Link to feedback:talk