User:B.johnson98/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: Scott Reuben
 * I chose this article because I thought it would be interesting to read and it is relevant to the course I am currently taking. Additionally, when readying information about something controversial such as a person involved in misconduct. I think it is important to make sure that the material is unbiased and accurate.

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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, there is relevant background and information about Scott Ruben. It is short and explains what he was involved in during his life. There could be more details about the case and what exactly happened.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, The last information about the subject was in 2010.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There should be more information about what Scott Ruben was accused of and what exactly his misconduct was.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? No, there is some biased language when talking about what Scott Ruben has publicly said.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The view point that he is guilty is overrepresented but that is because he was found guilty in a court of law.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Some persuasive content talking about Scott Ruben being guilty.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, a few of the sources are media platforms like The Wall Street journal, The Republican, Boston Glove, The New York Times and Anesthesiology News. Most of the sources were of quality via United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, the FDA and a few PUBMED articles. Some material is backed up correctly and some is from a media source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I would say some of the sources are thorough as most of the information about Scott Ruben's life comes from a media outlet but the information regarding his misconduct and medical career are from reliable sources with good information
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it was clear and concise. I had no trouble reading and understanding the article
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical errors that I found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the organization of the article made it easy to follow.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there are no photos
 * Are images well-captioned? No photos present
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No photos present
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no photos present

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 about what exactly Scott Ruben admitted to and correction of wording of the Hospital he did his residency at.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes is is apart of WikiProject Biography with a C-class waiting
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions:
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? It is complete but needing more details
 * What are the article's strengths? It explains partially what Scott Ruben was apart of and gives a little about his life.
 * How can the article be improved? The article just needs more reliable information from sources other than media platforms
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped, lacking details.

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: Talk:Scott Reuben