User:AnonymousUsernam33/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: Endocrine system
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article is about the endocrine system. It appears to be a broad overview with links to other pages about more specific details. I think this page is important because it could be a really good start to learning about the endocrine system.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Absolutely. The introductory sentence coherently describes what the endocrine system is. There is no unnecessary fluff.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In a narrative sort of way. It doesn't lay what sections will come next in a particular order but, the subsequent sections are about some of the main concepts brought up in the opening section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. Most noticeable is that there is no section on organs with secondary endocrine function. I honestly believe that this is an incomplete article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe it to be concise. We are in an entire course dedicated to the endocrine system. The lead summarizes it in three paragraphs.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. Everything in the article is related to the endocrine system.
 * Is the content up-to-date? As far as I can tell. Its a very general topic. It doesn't focus in detail on any one aspect of the endocrine system so the latest advancements aren't addressed.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes. As I said earlier there is no section about organs with secondary endocrine function. Also, the hormone section doesn't have any links to specific hormones, just general classes.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No I don't believe that it does.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really. This article seems to just put fourth information in an encyclopedic tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. I'm not sure this is really applicable to this article anyway.
 * 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? Most are. There are a lot of secondary sources from academic journals. However, one of the references is from a website. Its URL ends in dot gov but that doesn't mean its reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? With 19 references I would think not.
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat. I think the newest source I saw was from 2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Some of the authors of sources are women. As far as what nationality they are, I don't really know.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most work. The link for the main image goes to the NIH website but it says page not found.

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? None that I noticed
 * 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? There is a text book style picture at the beginning of the article. It shows the main organs of the endocrine system. I believe that to be useful.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? As far as I can tell. If you click on most of the images they will say they were taken from free sources and have already been reviewed by an ORTS (?) member. The only one I'm skeptical about is the image at the beginning of the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I think so.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is talk of adding more information to different sections. Also, the endocrine gland article may be merged into this one. The lead has been flagged as too long as well. Note that I disagree with that.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated level 4 importance and also C-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I would say that it is more general in its content. For example we've specifically looked at leptin and leptin receptors in the brain. This page provides links to other pages if you are looking for something in particular.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Its not finished.
 * What are the article's strengths? Its a good page to go to if you want general information on the endocrine system.
 * How can the article be improved? More detail. Possibly sections dedicated to secondary endocrine organs and maybe specific hormones.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think its a work in progress.

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: