User:Armansawhney/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) Endocrinology of parenting
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because the topic interested me and it's from the list of last year's edited articles.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence is a lot like the introduction to a paper, saying that it has been "the subject of considerable study" and naming its range of focus, but not necessarily describing what that focus is, but describes it in the second section. It does briefly describe the major sections of the article, It has some information that relates to topics not described in the article, but links to appropriate articles that do describe them. Overall, it is clear and concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic, but the recency of the articles ranges from the 1800s to 2016, with many of the articles being from the late-90's to early 2010's, meaning it is possible that they aren't very up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral, with no indication that there is a bias one way or another, and the high volume of sources seems to indicate that there is a low likelihood of certain viewpoints being overrepresented or underrepresented, and there doesn't seem to be a persuasive argument being made.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
It seems that all facts are supported by one or more source, however it appears that there may be a few primary sources. The sources are both thorough and relevant, but as previously mentioned they aren't the most current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is clear, concise, and deliberate, with no discernible grammatical or spelling errors, however the organization is done in a way different than what I would have done. Instead of going from hormones as a main heading to demographic subgroups as a sub-heading, I would have gone through each hormone with the demographics as the main heading.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images.

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

Talk page evaluation
The talk page shows only one conversation, it is rated as a Start-class, low importance article that is part of WikiProject medicine.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is start-class, it is strong in that it presents a lot of useful information, but can be improved by an increase in ore current sources, and perhaps a better form of organization. The article has a lot of good information, but it can be developed a lot more in the future.

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: