User:ANT201W/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: (link)

Bush medicine


 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have an interest in medicine as I am majoring in nursing, and this seems like an exciting, alternative angle to approach medicine with. It also appears to be an article that should have a lot of relevant information that can be added to it in order to improve it and the information it provides.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes - the only exception to this is the "Recent use" section does not seem to be mentioned in the Lead.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes - it has a reference to WW2 that is only present in the Lead.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes - it has a recent example from 2019.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The WW2 section could be either removed or elaborated on. Its current location (in the Lead section) seems incorrect.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes - the Statement regarding Bush Medicine influence on WW2 might be a bit positively biased.


 * 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.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes - There is a YouTube link, although it seems to be educational. (3rd reference)


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes - although the 1st and 5th reference links are dead links.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Most do, excluding the 1st and 5th.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes.


 * 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?

Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No, the article does not have any visuals at all- no pictures/images, charts, or graphs.


 * Are images well-captioned?

There are no images in this article.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

There are no images in this article.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There are no images in this article.

Images and media evaluation
Checking the talk page


 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There is only one comment on the talk page asking editors to support the project and to help find more sources to contribute to the content of the page.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Bush Medicine is rated as a start-class article. It is within the scope of WikiProject Australia and WikiProject Alternative Medicine. It is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

This article is a start-class article.


 * What are the article's strengths?

It is a very minimal article with not a lot of sections or content. Therefore it is a great starting place and has much potential.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article overall needs more content. It is a start-up article so it needs a lot of work. There needs to be more sections added, more content added to the existing sections (especially the recent use section), and visuals that help enhance understanding of the topic. As for the information already present, there needs to be more references added to back up the content.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It has been rated a start-class on the quality scale and is underdeveloped as it has barely any content.

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: