User:Bingonera4/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section 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.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes but grammar error
 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * somewhat, talks about needed bedside experience but doesn't discuss throughout article
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * good overview

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.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes doesn't go off topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * some info is from 2013
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * needs more details in education section
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * no

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.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * talks a lot about the history but not so much current times and day to day life now
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

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.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * no, scope of practice, education section
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * not all, history section, board of certification, scope of practice
 * not all, history section, board of certification, scope of practice

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


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

Images and Media

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

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.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * no conversations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * rated as start class and part of the wikiproject nursing
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * good overview of the topic
 * How can the article be improved?
 * more in-depth explanations, some grammar changes, fix citation
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * underdeveloped
 * underdeveloped

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.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
Neonatal nurse practitioner - Wikipedia

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.)

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.)