User:7826macfarm/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: Pfeiffer Syndrome
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: It was listed as a start-class.

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 concise and briefly describes that article's major sections, but some of the information is organized poorly. The statistic of it occurring in 1 in 100,000 births should be at the beginning, not the end, after it is described as a rare disorder.

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 is relatively up to date with information from 2016. However, it is lacking photos to help distinguish between the different types. Specific identifiers are listed, like a clover-shaped skull, but not displayed. Many descriptive things are listed, but not with a lot of elaboration.

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
I think the article is neutral. It is a factual description of the disease without any biases. It is not persuasive in any way.

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
There are some places with quotations but not cited. For example, it happens multiple times in the classification part under "cause". There is no reason they need to be quoted directly, but paraphrased in different terms and cited. However, the links do work and are from reliable sources.

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
It is easy to read, but just too concise. I have not identified any spelling errors. The organization is good and makes sense, but is lacking in more info.

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
The article includes some images, but needs more to portray the symptoms explained. I do not know what a clover-shaped head looks like.

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
It doesn't seem like there has been much contribution. Only 1 person has posted on it and they contributed to updating it from a genetics course. It is part of WikiProject Medicine and is rated a start-class.

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
I agree the article is a start-class. There is info present, but it is just lacking further explanation and detail. It has good sources, but is just under developed. With more time this article could be greatly improved.

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: Talk:Pfeiffer Syndrome