User:Adevire1/Evaluate an Article

User:Adevire1/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: Menkes disease
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Menkes disease was identified by a notable alumnus of Johns Hopkins Medical School, John Hans Menkes.

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 includes an introductory sentence describing the disease as well as what causes it. While it has a box with the names of the major sections in the article, the Lead only explicitly mentions the cause, signs and symptoms, and mechanisms sections. It fails to discuss both the treatment and epidemiology sections. There is little information in the Lead that is not mentioned in the article itself, including the incidence rate, the life expectancy of one with this condition, and the person who identified the disease. The Lead is concise and not overly detailed as it provides only as much information that is needed to understand the topic of the page.

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 article's content is relevant to the topic and never seems to discuss insignificant, unrelated topics. The content seems to be up to date as the cause is identified and there is currently no cure available. While there is no content that doesn't belong, it may be possible to add a section about the ongoing research about this disease that could potentially result in better detection of the disease and possibly more treatment options.

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
The article is neutral and it seems as though there is no bias towards a position. In terms of treatment, the article seems to be more on the positive side with statements such as "Among 12 newborns who were diagnosed with MNK, 92% were alive at age 4.6.", though in reality, the disease is quite deadly and most of the kids with it pass away within 10 years (a lot by the age of 3). Other than this, the article doesn't seem to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

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
The sources do seem to be thorough and some of them are forms of literature about the topic. The secondary sources do back up the facts in the article and they seem to be quite current (many are dated in the 2010s). I checked a few of the links and most of them worked with the exception of this one https://themenkesfoundation.org/research/overview.html which resulted in an error and should likely be replaced with https://themenkesfoundation.org/research.

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?

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 a total of two images that somewhat enhance understanding of the disease. The first image is of the protein that is affected by the gene mutation that causes Menkes disease and is captioned with the name of the protein. The second image is less enhancing for understanding the topic because it is an image of hair that reveals a sign of "pili torti" but this term is never explained in the article. This image is captioned well but doesn't seem to be relevant to the topic. Both images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and they are laid out well though the second one could be slightly larger.

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
One conversation is about how one believes it is copper deposits not calcium but in the end there is a reference stating that the article is correct in saying that it is calcium deposits. Another is about a new screening test that could be added to the article to improve it. It is rated as Start-Class and Low-importance but is supported by the Dermatology task force and Neurology task force (where it is marked as Mid-importance). Wikipedia discusses this topic by using more facts and much less personal experience/opinions than in class.

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
Overall, the article is informative but quite short. Its strengths lie in its Lead which is descriptive yet concise but to better the article, it is possible to add more to it to lengthen it. Also, it could be useful to add more images describing the disease and adding to understanding. I think the article is well-developed so far but needs to have more information on the disease and the treatment options.

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: