User:CRH16/Evaluate an Article

Coronary Vasospasm
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
This lead is overall very bare. There's limited information, and the references that are cited seem to rely heavily on primary literature. It lacks a description of the article's major sections (although, there are no major sections added.) Because of this, all of the information in the lead is also not present in the article or expanded upon further in later sections which could be beneficial.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content does not seem to be up to date, as the references that are listed are really limited to older literature and primary sources. There seems to be some pretty big content gaps - there are no sections on risk factors, pathophysiology, and diagnosis or complications.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
In terms of tone, the article actually maintains a pretty neutral tone overall that appears balanced. It does not appear to be attempting to persuade or sway viewpoints in one direction or another. This in part could be due to the fact that content is limited overall. I think it'll be important to maintain that tone throughout the rest of the article as content is added.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are limited in terms of their ability to generalize/externalize the information because the sources have small sample sizes in their studies. Moreover, these sources are older and do not appear to be as up to date as other articles on the topics might be. The links are working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
Because the article is limited in its content, it is very easy to read. However, it could be greatly improved in terms of organization by adding more sections. There are no grammatical or spelling errors that stand out.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images to this article yet.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
No conversations are ongoing in the talk page. It is rated as stub class mid-importance in the WikiMedicine project.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think this article is very bare and could be greatly expanded upon. Its strengths are that it is a topic that is relatively narrow and can be greatly expanded upon without making it too confusing. However, because it is so underdeveloped I think it would benefit greatly from content addition and organization re-structuring.

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: