User:Abbey-MU/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: (John O'Keefe)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because it is a class C page concerning a neuroscientist. Similar to our articles for the class, this is about a living neuroscientist.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The first sentence is a great summary of who he is and what he does as a neuroscientist. It includes not direct citations to where this information is from. Each sentence in the lead describes each of the article's major sections. The lead contains lots of long specific organizations, but is not overly detailed.


 * 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 has last been edited since 2015, but still contains the most important information about John O'Keefe's career. This article contains his major research findings and honors, but is missing his current research focus.


 * 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

This article is mostly neutral in that it discusses the hard science that O'Keefe has contributed to. The article says nothing negative about O'Keefe, yet does not seen to be bias towards him. The viewpoint that he is constantly discovering things is overrepresented, but this is most likely how it is balanced as it is in the media as well.


 * 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

Not all facts are backed up in a cited way. The early life section has 5 links, however the discovery of theta phase precession only has 1 citation. The links I have tried work and are current.


 * 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

This article is concise and says what it needs to say. Although I cannot get to know who O'Keefe is, this article would answer many questions a reader might have about his career and awards. There are not grammatical or spelling errors I could find. The sections reflect as many major topics and I could think of.


 * 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

This article only includes two images, each a headshot of O'Keefe. Both images are from 2014 according to the captions, which work well to describe the image. Both images appear to have appropriate copyright descriptions. More multimedia display would be helpful, but difficult to gather.


 * 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 talk page includes 2 conversations. The first is from an editor that claims to want to remove the Gruber web site citation and replace it with knowledge he had from personal experience. This is concerningly off the point, as a second editor pointed out. The second conversation is about how far Wikipedia can go into saying he discovered the importance of place cells. This article is C rated, but is part of the Biography WikiProject and Neuroscience WikiProject. This topic's talk page is respectful and complete.


 * 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

This article is very good at describing his research as well as his current position at UCL. It does not go in depth to his early life or his Nobel Prize as one may expect. More information should be added to the Nobel Prize description. This article is well-developed considering current information available.


 * 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: ~