User:C. Do, Future UCSF Pharm.D./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.


 * Ventilator
 * I had chosen this article to evaluate due to its C-rated class and mid-level importance. Also, ventilators are a very relevant topic given the current COVID-19 pandemic and its shortage across many institutions.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead paragraph provided an adequate definition of a ventilator, a little bit of history on previous terms for a ventilator, and areas in which they are used.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead paragraph does a good job in providing a concise introduction of the article to come without being repetitive.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead paragraph only contained information that is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise for the reasons I mentioned above. It does not deter readers from reading further into the article.

Lead evaluation
I thought the Lead was well written and provides a good overview of the article. It does not mention more current events, which are mentioned later in the article, but I did not see this as a potential issue of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic. I like how it included current events – the COVID-19 pandemic – that are very relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, for the same reason mentioned above. However, it did not compromise including relevant history.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I like all of the sections that were added, but I think adding a section on common disease states where mechanical ventilation may be needed would help improve the article.

Content evaluation
The article's content was very thorough and encompasses many important subtopics under ventilation. As stated above, it might be good to consider common cases where ventilation would be needed.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article uses a neutral tone throughout.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do not believe there are any claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a section for only the United States under COVID-19, but I think putting in more information from other countries will improve the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there is no evidence of persuasive language in the article.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article generally had a good balance in information and neutrality.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the article had plenty of reliable resources, such as those from research publications in relevant areas.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, some of the sources are from scientific literature directly.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. Many of them are from 2020.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * One of the links I clicked on would not load. The source date was 1988.

Sources and references evaluation
See above.

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?
 * There were no grammatical or spelling errors from what I have noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
Organization was very thoughtful and clear.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article included many pictures of ventilators throughout history.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
Images were put in sections in which they were relevant.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Someone added a list of many open sources that prove to be valuable to use in the article. There was also discussion on how the term "ventilator" is used in a medical and non-medical contexts.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Technology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In class, we use more opinions and less neutrality regarding ventilators because, in general, the duration of time a patient spends on a ventilator is correlated to adverse health outcomes.

Talk page evaluation
I appreciate how the talk page encompassed many concerns regarding the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-class, mid-importance
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Concise, thorough
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Mention disease states or some medical concerns while patients are on ventilators
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is pretty well developed, especially with the recent updates in 2020.

Overall evaluation
I thought this article was well-written. I would add the aforementioned changes.

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: