User:Beastmode1516/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Talk:Integumentary system

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I'm taking an anatomy class and we went over this my last semester so it was interning to read an article about what I once studied and tested over.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

= Evaluate an Article Questions: =

Lead:
A good lead section define defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Questions about Lead:
1.     Does the lead include an introduction sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic? Yes, stated it was talking about the integumentary system, which they did, and all the parts included with the integumentary system.

2.    Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections? Somewhat, the beginning includes definitions that was later brought up throughout the article.

3.    Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn’t) no, it only goes over the integumentary system and the parts that make it up.

4.    Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed? I think it was overly detailed, but that’s what you need when reading about the integumentary system or other aspects of anatomy.

Content:

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Questions about Content:
1.    Is the article’s content relevant to the topic? Yes

2.    Is the content up to date?

3.    Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there was information that this article didn’t need, the story of Karen Wetterhahn, I felt they had got their point across of the layers of the skin and didn’t need to include her story.

4.    Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia‘s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this is an informational article about the “skin”.

Tone and Balance:
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Questions about Tone and Balance:
1.     Is the article neutral? Yes, it only talks about how the integumentary system works, what its made up of, and the different roles of skin

2.    Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no sides being taken in this article.

3.    Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? No, I think it was all represented and gone over equally.

4.    Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

5.    Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, this article is informing those that what to learn about anatomy, more specifically the skin (integumentary).

Sources and References:
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand when possible, this means academic and peer reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Questions about Sources and References:
1.     Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I don’t think the sources used are reliable

2.    Are the sources thorough – i.e., do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are not thorough

3.    Are the sources current?

4.    Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Each source has a different author

5.    Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

6.    Are there better sources available such as peer reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

7.     Check a few links. Do they work? Only 3 links worked

Organization and Writing Quality
The writing should be clear and professional; the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Questions for Organization and Writing Quality
1.     Is the article well written – i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy-to-read? Yes, the article was organized and put into sections so you know what section you’re reading about.

2.    Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I saw.

3.    Is the article well-organized – i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it had sections for each topic it went over

Images and Media:
1.     Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images

2.    Are images well captioned?

3.    Do all images adhere to Wikipedia ‘s copyright regulations?

4.    Are the images laid out in a visually-appealing way?

Talk Page Discussion:
The article’s Talk Page - and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there - can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn’t think of.

Questions for Talk Page Discussion:
1.     What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversations that could be brought up are about the different layers and there purpose, glands, how it functions

2.    How is the article rated? Rated c class

3.    Is it a part of any wiki projects? Wiki project anatomy, wiki project animal anatomy, and wiki project systems

Questions for Overall Impressions:
1.     What is the article ‘s overall status?

2.    What are the article’s strengths? The depth and factual information

3.    How can the article be improved?

4.    How would you assess the articles completeness – i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback:
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms; the most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.