User:CSD2020UPRC/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) Diuretic
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.  I have chosen this article because, in the future, I want to become a PharmD and result interesting to evaluate an article related to it.

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
To some extent, the "Lead" introduces the content of the article but needs work. The definition is way to undetailed and could have a better development. Also, the introduction has topics in the context that are not precisely detailed. A well, it has a brief description to the main section.

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 article's content is relevant to the topic but needs to improve the way the information is presented and written. Also, I consider this article is missing information as it is, long and short term side effects, a better explanation in the "Adverse effects" section, and precise details in the "Abuse in sport" section.

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
The article is pretty neutral and has a formal approach. Everything seems to be strictly informative without intentions. Further, it does not show any position that may persuade the reader.

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
It has a lot of references, but the most guides you to books which you have to search by external sources (Google books, E-bay, Open Library, Amazon.com) and buy it. Most of the references indicated in the article direct you to the same book reference. The majority of the sources are from 2003-2004, even though there are two from 2010-2012. Also, the links inside the article work and lead you to other Wikipedia articles.

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
The article uses words and terminology that is not clear for someone who does not know anything about it (very hard to read). It has punctuation and commas misuse between clause. Moreover, I think the article is well-organized and guides the reader from the main topic to the support content.

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
The article does not include images and media that can help with the understanding of the topic. It only has one that does not help with the comprehension of 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?
 * 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
One of the current conversations on the talk page of this article is about caffeine as a diuretic. There are still some debates about this. In addition, its mention in the talk page about the missing content and how badly written it is. This article is C-class rated and is part of the WikiProject Medicine and the WikiProject Pharmacology.

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
I believe that this article could be better and easier to understand. Its strengths are the "Types" section, even though it could be written in a reader-friendly way. Besides, it would be excellent to add a history and provenance section.

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: