User:BrookeBarlow/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) Cold and heat adaptations in humans
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it seems interesting and has a decent amount of information and references listed.

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 very briefly.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It mentions homeostasis and hypo and hyperthermia which are never discussed elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, and I do not believe that it is overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content is relevant to the topic of cold and heat adaptations in humans.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it was last updated a few weeks ago.
 * "This page was last edited on 16 September 2020, at 21:25."
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think all of the content that needed to be present is present, and I think that it all belongs in this article although perhaps a discussion of hypothermia and hyperthermia would have been beneficial to explain a little more in depth the limitations of our ability to adapt to cold and heat.
 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a few lines of facts which do not include citations but for the most part it is well cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are not the most current and could definitely use an update.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not the most diverse perspective, but this likely also has to do with somewhat of a lack of current sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, not that I noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images. This is where it would be helpful to include perhaps pictures of what can happen when exposed to extreme heat or cold.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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 are no conversations on the talk page unless i'm looking in the wrong place.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's rated as a C class article. It is part of both WikiProject Anthropology and WikiProject Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have only talked about this topic with respect to deep sea organisms which are obviously different from humans, however, this is much more broad and less factual and into the details than we go in class. Typically, we are more technical and scientific than this.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is definitely a work in progress and has a ways to go to be improved.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Its strengths include that it has a clear and concise lead and a good organization of information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It could be improved with the added use of images, as well as updating the references and adding some more detail about the limits to our heat and cold capabilities.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it's moderately complete. It's neither incredibly underdeveloped nor well-developed.  It just needs tweaking and some freshening up on sources.

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: