User:AlyssaSNeuro/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) Neuroscience
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because is it relevant to this course and what we will be learning about. We will also be doing our projects on different neuroscientists so this topic is appropriate for that reason as well.

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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead of the article is very brief and concise. The introductory sentence is short, but clearly provides a definition of the topic. Most of the information in the lead appears to be relevant to the article. It gives a brief description of the main points that the article will be discussing.


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
All of the content presented in the article is relevant to the topic of neuroscience. The last edit made to this article was January 7, 2020. Therefore, the content of this article is very up-to-date. There does not appear to be missing or irrelevant content in this article.

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?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the article presents as neutral. No claims appear to be heavily biased. There are not viewpoints that are over or underrespresented, however, there are certain categories that are discussed more in detail than others. These include the history and modern neuroscience vs computational. There are not necessarily positions that are being presented but rather education on the topic of neuroscience.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Some
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The article does a great job of providing many current and detailed references. However, many references were not current at all. Several links were tested and worked properly.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The overall organization of the article is smooth. It is written in a way that is easy to read and follow, and there do not appear to be any spelling or grammatical mistakes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Several images are present within the article that are relevant to neuroscience. Many different images of brains are shown to enhance the specific topics being discussed. The format of the images is very neat and visually appealing. Each image contains proper captioning that briefly explains the image. All images adhere to the copyright regulations required by Wikipedia.

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? B-class. Yes.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Since it is still the beginning of the semester, we have not talked much about neuroscience yet in class. Wikipedia discusses many more branches of neuroscience that we have not talked about in class yet. Some questions related to this were whether or not neurobiology and neuroscience can be used as synonyms and whether neuroscience has branched from biology or not. The rating of this article is B-class, which is fairly high. It is also apart of various WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? B-Class
 * 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? Well-developed

Overall evaluation
The overall status of this article is B-Class. The articles strengths are that it is very concise yet informative at the same time. It does a nice job of describing what neuroscience is, the history, and the different types of it. I think this article could be improved by adding more detail to some of the types of neuroscience. I would consider this article to be fairly well-developed, as it does contain a significant amount of information on the topic.

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: