User:Abuffington17/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: Optic nerve
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I am a pre-optometry student. I am interested in optic topics and it's related to information we are studying currently.

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 describes what the optic nerve is, what it does, and where it is located in its introductory sentence. It does a good job of explaining what it is in a short and concise manner, although the lead doesn't include an overview of the article sections besides the content table. Also, all of the material in the lead is repeated and explained more in depth at some point in the article. The lead is very concise but manages to give a good overview of the structure in only two sentences.

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 articles content is all relevant to the optic nerve. The article discusses its structure, function, and why it is clinically significant. The content is up to date. Most sources used are fairly recent, although the anatomy of the optic nerve is not changing, making the few older sources used just as trustworthy. There could be more content added to this article including a more in depth explanation of its clinical significance for certain diseases such as glaucoma.

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
This article is very neutral. There don't appear to be any claims which are biased, especially since most of this article is scientific information and not something "claim based". The article covers all material in a representative fashion and does not attempt to persuade the reader to believe anything.

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
Both the structure and function sections of this article have good sources which are cited as needed. More sources need to be cited in the clinical significance section, as almost no sources are used here. More sources included in this article may be able to draw in more recent literature and relevant topics to the optic nerve as well. The sources are mostly current, though a few are older textbooks. The links included work and lead to the articles used.

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
The article is very well written so that anyone could understand the basics of this topic. The grammar and spelling is good and the article is also well-organized. Its sections make sense and flow logically into one another.

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 contains too many images, which almost inhibits their effectiveness. While a few may be helpful, 20 is too many. The images included in the article sections are laid out well, but the images at the end of the article are not. While some are well-captioned, some are not.

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
Most of the conversations in the talk page are questioning the accuracy of material posted. They are questioning whether or not the article gives the whole picture, since most people feel some information is being left out. Others used it as a forum to discuss personal medical issues and others discussed how the amount of pictures on the page is not helpful at all. This page is part of WikiProject Anatomy.

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
The article is rated as level-5 vital to Biology. It has a strong background of general information on the optic nerve, its structure, its function, and its clinical applications. The article could be improved by decreasing the amount of images used and making sure their captions are relevant. The clinical applications section could also be updated with sources and more detailed information. Overall, I think the article can be improved although it already has very good information and has been mostly 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: