User:AHean2022/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: Enuresis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article was assigned to us as part of our 4 articles, and we believed it was one that needed much work compared to the others.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead includes an introductory sentence describing the article's topic. It does not have a brief description of the major sections, and is sparse with a lack of further discussion about what the article goes over int he Lead. The Lead is concise but a bit too much.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content that is available is relevant, but the lack of information reflects it not being up-to-date. It does have content that is not well-cited, but it is does not contain content that doesn't belong--it's just sparse.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article presents information in an unbiased, neutral manner. There appears to be not well fleshed out in regards to medications and treatment, but there are no "viewpoints" that might be overrepresented. The article does not persuade a reader a certain way.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The article lacks citation in many places and makes statements that really should be backed by authorities/expert in the field with secondary sources. Considering that this topic is a bit derivative of articles that are classifications of Enuresis, it is understandable why it has not been updated with reliable literature that is up to date. The links appear to work but many sources are cited in literature that do not have links.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is concise and easy to read but has some sections that are very simple to read and others that have lots of medical/professional jargon. It needs to be standardized a bit more between those 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

 * Guiding questions

There are no images that enhance the understanding of the topic aside from an image of a child on a playground, which does help demonstrate how enuresis occurs in children.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The conversations occurring seem to be a bit off-topic, and is part of a WikiProject on medicine. But there is a lack of talk on this article overall.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

Overall, this article definitely fits the stub status it has. It needs more sourcing of guidelines and literature reviews, and can be more informative to the public who are not trained in healthcare. This article needs more development and is poorly developed so far.


 * 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?

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: