User:Alexmgrus/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) Dose-volume histogram
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article is very short. Wording of explanations could be improved. Images could be better used to help readers understand. Topic is not explored thoroughly.

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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes (DVH invention)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Adequately concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The latest reference is from 2010. While the information is accurate, more recent references could be added to cover the topic thoroughly.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The "types" could be expanded to discuss other innovations such as using radiobiology in DVHs or the "natural" DVH.
 * Drawbacks should include inverse square
 * article might include context on where DVHs are used during planning

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * more recent sources should be used
 * Are the sources current?
 * no
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Wording could be better in "Types" section
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * confusing wording in third paragraph
 * 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?
 * only one image is used, and it is a little complex
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the caption is accurate but does not provide explanation
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * no, labels are much too small

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * last message is from 2008, someone wanted to add example pictures
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start-class
 * part of the WikiProject Medicine
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * seems consistent

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * what's there is accurate, but it could easily be expanded upon and worded more clearly.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * it covers the basics of the subject well
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I would first change the wording to be more understandable, then add more information about details of the DVH
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is underdeveloped

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: