User:Amircha/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: Mammography
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am going into Radiology next year so this topic interests me

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, clearly describes the topic of mammography and its purpose
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes vaguely refers to major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Not perfectly up to date. Some discussion of risks and benefits seems to go back and forth with new and old data
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content is overall relevant

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Multiple viewpoints are considered for both positive and negative screenings
 * 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? Article appears to use reliable sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not necessarily. Some points of the article appear to use old data
 * Are the sources current? No, see above.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not every link works.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Most images are relevant. In particular the image describing the procedure was very helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, captions are relevant
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, overall

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Some people feel there is excessive weight given to the criticisms of mammography
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is given a C rating as found on the C section article link
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia presents multiple viewpoints (more than I'm used to in class)

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? C
 * What are the article's strengths? Provides good overview of relevant topics;
 * How can the article be improved? Maybe putting less focus on criticisms of mammography and expanding certain section (tomosynthesis)
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Overall the article is well developed but some of the linked topics (ex: tomosynthesis) need to be fleshed out more.

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: