User:Abeszhak/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: Testosterone-cortisol ratio
 * I was having some troubles finding an endocrinology-related, stub/start article of mid/high importance and then I found this one. I'm not sure where it lands on the colorful importance x quality chart (is there a place to check that on a given article?) but I figured it presents an interesting thread that I could follow for my semester project. It's not full of information, but it does have other redeeming qualities that I will include below.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead certainly has a concise introductory sentence that details the topic of the article. The article doesn't have distinct sections either due to a lack of research and results or to a lack of importance. The Lead doesn't include any information that isn't present in the article and subsequently, is concise.


 * 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 article's content directly addresses the topic. The last edit to the page was done on the 22nd of February, 2019. I suppose it's hard to say if new information has come out since then, though February 2019 seems pretty recent to me. There is quite a lot of content that's missing, though I'm unsure if it's due to a lack of information or a lack of importance. I don't believe that there is any content that doesn't belong, all of the content directly relates to the topic. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral, it doesn't sway toward support nor disapproval of the topic. None of the claims in the article are heavily biased. There's a certain lack of further information, surely there are underrepresented viewpoints because of this. I certainly wouldn't say that any viewpoints are overrepresented. There isn't any persuasion involved in the article.


 * 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

All facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source, every sentence is followed by a citation. All of the citations are from journal articles. The most recent citation is from a journal from 2012, so not entirely recent I suppose (what is recent and what's not?). All of the links work and take the user directly to the article on PubMed. Several different nationalities of authors are included.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well written and easy to read, there isn't any rambling sentences or filler words. There are no spelling or grammatical errors present. The article is unfortunately not broken down into 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 or media included in the article.


 * 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

There are unfortunately no conversations happening in the Talk page for this article.


 * 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

The article is brief and definitely a "stub". The content that the article does contain is clear, descriptive and cited thoroughly. The article could be improved through a deeper search for information to fill out the article's sections (that would need to be created). The article is certainly underdeveloped, though more information - if available - would greatly improve its status.


 * 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: Talk:Testosterone-cortisol ratio