User:Cpantelis1/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: Walter Dandy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because of its relevance to the history of Johns Hopkins Medicine. It has a strong relevance to Johns Hopkins as Walter had studied for the majority of his career at Johns Hopkins and using his studies he became one of the founding members of the practice of neurosurgery. This appealed to me so much because I am currently an undergraduate student at Johns Hopkins University and would like to pursue career as a surgeon. I have shadowed for some surgeons and have found it very interesting for how adept they are working with their hands, so this led me to one of the toughest practices in terms of techniques needed to be successful.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I feel that the introductory sentence is somewhat bland and could use more detail. However, the the following sentences provide the necessary detail to clearly describe the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead to the article does provide a description to the article's major sections. This is because in the Lead, it outlines Walter's contributions to the field of neurosurgery and it describes his major publications as a research professional. These combined accomplishments along with a description about his personal life become the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It does not, however I feel it could be shortened by limiting the Lead to just facts about Walter and limit the obvious opinions regarding his talents as a surgeon.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel it is fairly concise, but it includes details that could be taken out. For example, the article mentions his "speed and dexterity" as a surgeon, which are somewhat obvious descriptions in regard to him being a founder to the practice of neurosurgery.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The majority of the article's content is relevant to the topic, as it goes into great depth on Walter's contributions to the variety of subfields within the practice of neurosurgery. This strictly follows what was outlined in the Lead. However, the section regarding his personal life contains a lot of information that has little relevance to the article's main point in outlining his contributions to the practice neurosurgery. I feel as a whole this section could be minimized and focus its attention to portion regarding his invite to join the Society of Neurological Surgeons.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is fairly dated as the references are found to be in the early 2000s or in the later portion of the 1980s and 1990s. Also, this article was classified as a Start-Class article by Wikipedia and there is almost nothing found on the sites talk page. This leads me to believe that this was created and edited by one person or group. With these two ideas in mind, I feel that the content is out of date and could use an update.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think that any content is missing because I feel it outlines the numerous contributions he made in his professional career and outlines both the major parts of his personal and early life. However, I feel that both the sections regarding his early and personal life include pieces of information that are somewhat opinionated and likely don't serve any contribution to the important aspects of these parts to his life. As a result, these portions of the article should be taken out and the major parts of his life outside his professional career (ie. joining the Society of Neurological Surgeons) should include more information.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I believe that there is a slight bias directed to enhance Walter's reputation. So, this article is not neutral for the reason of its inclusion of very opinionated statements that are about his surgical skills.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are some claims that are biased toward his talents as a surgeon such as "The technical prowess involved in carrying out this operation successfully can not be overstated, particularly without the benefit of the surgical microscope for magnification". Statements like this could be formulated in a different way to suggest the fact that he was an upcoming and successful practitioner. However, the statements made in this way suggest an undertone of favoritism in Dandy's favor.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the most underrepresented viewpoint in this article is his joining of the Society of Neurological Surgeons. Even though he was not very excited in joining, I feel the article should supply a link or at least a brief description about it. I also feel the section regarding the Walter E. Dandy Neurological Society is fairly brief and should include more information regarding its endeavors.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * This article's main priority is to inform its readers about Walter Dandy's contributions to neurosurgery. However, it does include some opinionated statements that enhance his reputation for the reader to look art him in a good light. Although the opinionated statements are brief enough to the point that it does not necessarily persuade the reader from one position to another.
 * This article's main priority is to inform its readers about Walter Dandy's contributions to neurosurgery. However, it does include some opinionated statements that enhance his reputation for the reader to look art him in a good light. Although the opinionated statements are brief enough to the point that it does not necessarily persuade the reader from one position to another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the facts stated in the article are backed by many external references and recollections written by multiple different professionals and historians in the field of medicine.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough as they illustrate the techniques he utilized throughout his medical career. These sources are share very common points as the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are somewhat outdated because the article references some outdated medical terms and techniques it deems as the most updated practice.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links listed and cited in the article do work. However, I feel there could be more links and citations. Specifically, in the sections regarding the medical procedures he performed. This would allow the reader to go to the next site to learn more about the procedure before moving on in the article about Dandy.
 * Yes, the links listed and cited in the article do work. However, I feel there could be more links and citations. Specifically, in the sections regarding the medical procedures he performed. This would allow the reader to go to the next site to learn more about the procedure before moving on in the article about Dandy.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, this article is well-written. I feel that the article has reasonable section divides and the most important sections are the most in depth. The language of the article somewhat requires knowledge of medical terms to understand, but it helps that the article provides brief descriptions of these terms.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I saw no spelling errors, but I did catch a few grammatical errors (ie. comma splice). These grammatical errors could be fixed with slight changes in style and sentence variety.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, this article is broken down into major sections. Primarily, it is broken down into component parts such as his early life, contributions to neurosurgery, and his personal life. I think the article does a good job in further breaking down his scientific and clinical contributions into the specifics for his contributions to neurosurgery (for example - neuroradiology vs. pediatric neurosurgery) while providing sufficient information for each subsection.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article contains only two images, both still images of Walter Dandy. These give readers an idea of who he was and what he looked like, but does not give an idea into his work. The article describes some of his surgeries and the problems he faced, but it does not include any images of these that would give readers a better look into the meaning of the medical terms used to describe his procedures. However, camera quality and pictures were still in development at the prime of his career, so this would give rise to their being limitations to image availability of Walter Dandy.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * One image has no caption at all, while other contains a strong summary about Walter and some of his endeavors. This image provided insight into Walter that the section it is placed next to had not. While the caption is informative, the picture is not really relevant to it, other than fact it is a still image of Walter.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes these images do adhere to the copyright regulations. This is because one image has been made available to the public domain and the other has been correctly cited with the domain owners site attached to the image.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I feel the images are laid out in a visually appealing way because they are clear and large enough for the reader to view.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Because this is a start-class article, there are no conversations going on in the talk section about this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a Start-Class biography article. It is part of the WikiProject title WikiProject Biography.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia provides only a brief discussion about the article, as it describes what type of article it is. However, the talk section does not provide any discussion about the article. The assumed difference would be that the discussion about the article would be more informal compared to the class discussion, as it is open to the public's discretion.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article provides great insight into one of the founders for the field of neurosurgery along with strong descriptions regarding his contributions to the practice. Overall, it is strongly developed article with some stylistic errors that affect its general bias. The article has a strong Lead that includes some details that are fairly obvious, but overall provides a strong summary and introduction for what is to come in the article. This article is clearly organized in its approach, as it is divided into the specific contributions he made to each subfield of neurosurgery with a depth of information to support it. Finally, the article loses some focus in its final section, as it provides much more information than needed in areas that do not to be as deep. This article, overall, is a strong start-class type.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article provided great insight into Walter's contributions in the field of neurosurgery. Because he made a variety of contributions to the practice, the article does a great job in dividing separate sections in regard to each contribution to a specific field in his practice. I also feel that a large portion of the Lead in this article provides a brief summary of what's to come in the rest of the article.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Overall, there are a lot of places where opinionated statements could be removed or stated in a different way in order to remove the bias from the article. Also, a brief portion of the Lead should be removed in order to get rid of the unnecessary and obvious statements, such as "his speed and dexterity". Finally, I think it could be improved in the section regarding his personal life. I think it stresses the unnecessary portions of his personal life, where it should just briefly talk about them. Also, this section only touches upon an important aspect of his personal life, his Society of Neurological Surgeons, where it should go into great depth on this topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I feel the article is well-developed because of the depth of information it goes into regarding his contributions toward the subfields of neurosurgery and the practice itself. I feel it could include a few more images to enhance the descriptions regarding the medical procedures he was performing. From a stylistic point of view, I feel it is underdeveloped and could use a few improvements in order to remove some of the bias attached to it.

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: