User:Amart764/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: Energy medicine
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I plan on investing knowledge into a fitness app which offers on demand training services to the community. This article on energy medicine can better shape my mission and philosophy.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It offers a detailed explanation of energy medicine.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * In a way, it begins with an overarching category and a brief description of what energy medicine entails.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise while leaving little to no room for questions.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it mentions methods of practicing energy medicine, the history of it, as well as what classifies as 'energy medicine'
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I am not an expert, but it seems to be very detailed with many references as late as 2010.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it speaks in a direct tone with no opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it speaks factually.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The history piece was concise, maybe they could have elaborated on the future of it.
 * 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, references and links to supporting media are all throughout.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most current reference seems to be 2010- maybe an edit is needed.
 * 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?
 * Yes. It is all organized, clear sentences with no over-elaborate jargon.
 * 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. They also included a table of contents which they followed.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. They include images in the beginning as a header icon as well as alter with a practitioner.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, simple and to the point.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes- they include links.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think one or two more images could be useful, but the one they have now is a good reference.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Definitions are used as a temporary side chat to continue supporting the reader in a semi-medical article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Not sure.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about this topic in class. We have discussed Wikipedia being a source of potentially false information- this article does not seem to fit that label. It seems well supported and factual.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article needs revision and someone to bring it up to date. It is factual, well organized and cohesive.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article mentions its history, its practice and explains its philosophy.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs revision- it is not very up to date.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is well developed, but needs a revision.

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: