User:Blacksheep109/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: Metals in medicine
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I looked through the general Bioinorganic chemistry Wikipedia page and found a topic that I have looked into for specific examples, but never the broad overview of the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think that the lead sentence is very concise and overall does layout the entire article in a very vague fashion. I think the author could expand it a little more to highlight the different sections of the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I do not think the lead paragraph goes into enough detail of the different sections of the article and could afford to give a little more detail and lead into the article. It does not do a great job of wanting the reader to continue reading,
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead paragraph uses a specific term that is linked, but does not use or attempt to define or apply in reference to this article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead paragraph gives some details, but could be more descriptive in what is to come later in the paragraph to encourage the read to continue.

Lead evaluation
'''I think overall it is a weak lead paragraph and could use more details to encourage the read to continue reading the content of the article. I do not think the wording of the introduction paragraph matches the rest of the paper.'''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I think all the sections of the article are very relevant to the topic and do a great job of giving an overview paragraph and then follow up with specific examples.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content appears to be up to date. Some sections are very vague and could be expanded and contain more links to allow the reader to research further into specific topics that are not explained.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not think that any specific information is missing, but could use more links and details for further investigation. Some sections are very detailed, but others appear to be lacking information.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is very neutral and only states facts not leading someone to one side or the other.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that lead a person to one side or the other. The only issue is the layout of the article starts with the bad of metal in the body, then goes to good. I thought this order made is seem like all metal in the body was bad at first. I would have reordered the sections to be more clear with claims and not appear bias or making it seem like all metal is the body is poison.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a heavy emphasis of bad examples of metal in the body and it may be useful to the reader to explain more detail of good uses of metal and more applications of using metals to disease detection. This is a large topic and was not significantly touch in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not think there is a specific position the author takes on the topic, but could emphasize different area of the topic to make the article better.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think some areas of the article could be expanded and the layout of the article could be rearranged to not intimidate a reader that is very unfamiliar with the topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * This is the area the article lacks the most. A lot of things are stated with no source. Some things contain links to other articles, but the author needs more outside sources to strengthen the article. Some of the claims could be common knowledge, but need a source to tell where the information came from. From experience Inorganic chemistry is a new topic and some authors have conflicting opinions on how things work and citing those authors could emphasize either what side they are taking or if they are staying neutral on the issue.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I do not think there are enough sources for this article especially based on the length and terms used in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Of the four sources two are recent (2012 and 2019) and two are older references (2005 and 1994). They are not very current, but spread out with the times of publication.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * One reference is a book that was not accessible online, one was an accessible article, one was a longer article that was a combination of several articles, and the last article is harder to access and requires a sign up. There were no specific links in the article, but putting the source in a search bar brought up the source immediately.

Sources and references evaluation
'''Based on the length of the sources all the content may be in the sources, but more references are needed throughout the article. Also more sources in the article could strengthen and keep from the article being bias.'''

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think the article overall was easy to read. Some topics required more investigation and prior knowledge, but were not hard to understand. The flow of the article could be rearranged to seem less intimidated to the reader. For example, have the necessary uses of metals in the body first then move to bad metals in the body and applications of metals in medical terms.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammar or spelling errors in the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Overall each section is well organized and has great flow. The overall flow could be reorganized to appear less intimidating.

Organization evaluation
'''I think the organization of the article was fine overall, but could be rearranged. Each section was overall very well organized and easy to follow.'''

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are only four images in the article. The article could use more images to emphasize the content.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images only have a title with no caption in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * When clicking on the link on each image the owner of the image in linked and accessible to talk with and with more details about the image. The images are not cited in the article only the external link is available with description of the images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images either come significantly before the reference or after the reference in the test. The images were all structures and did not really emphasize article.

Images and media evaluation
I think the article could have a few more images to emphasize the article and not just words with a few structures that do not really help the article.

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 was not talk page under this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * No detected rating on the article and does not seem to be a part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I think this Wikipedia page is presented similar to how this sort of topic would be presented in class, but would go into more chemical details on specific reactions.

Talk page evaluation
This page needs a talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is overall good, but could use some edits and revisiting for improvements.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Each of the article's sections are very detailed and laid out with good flow to strengthen the topic and article.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Reorganization and more reference to sources would improve the article. Adding pictures could draw in the reader. Rewriting the lead paragraph with similar wording of the rest of the article could draw in the reader and make the flow of the article more clear to the reader.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is almost complete, but could use a few edits to complete the article.

Overall evaluation
Overall the article is good, and almost complete with a few edits and improvements.

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:Metals in medicine