User:DangNathanCP133/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: (Chronic kidney disease)
 * We learned about this in therapeutics

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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? A few things; some epidemiology statistics from 2015 and 2016 are mentioned int he Lead but not the Epidemiology section of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's understandably longer than the average header due to the length of the whole article and number of topics covered, but it still concisely summarizes all major sections of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. Epidemiology statistics, for example,
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? 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? Yes, several guidelines and secondary publications (i.e. meta-analyses) are used.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, many varied sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most recent sources are from 2017.
 * 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
 * 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? Yes
 * 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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Interesting conversations ranging from simple formatting of table aesthetics, one person insisting on including a type of therapy that does not yet have a clinical trial to back up, and another talking about rewriting a statement to reflect the correct hemoglobin level range at which a therapy is to be used.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article has a B rating. It is part of the WikiProject Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Much of the discussion is related to updating outdated statements or adding in statements that are missing but probably important. In class, we generally get information that is up to date. The article itself covers many of the same topics we discuss in class, but in more detail.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article has High Importance
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a concise Lead, most, if not all, the relevant sections a person could want, good sources, detail, formatting, pictures, citations, and hyperlinks to other pages.
 * How can the article be improved? Possibly updating sources, since the most recent was 2017.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well developed and its B rating is good. The Talk page dates back to February 2006, so much has been done to keep the page complete and accurate.

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: