User:Daniel Journey/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) Addiction
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead goes right into the topic explaining its meaning. It does lead into the major contents of the article. The lead is slightly overly detailed so its easy to get lost in the sauce.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * It is relevant to the topic because it talks about the reasons why addiction exists as well as the symptoms. From what I can see it is up to date.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article does not seem to have any bias but rather hits as an informative on the subject. It does only stay on the negative impacts of addiction particularly with drug addiction.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts in the article are backed by a laundry list of sources. Though there are a good amount of unreliable sources that can make room for false information.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article in most part is well written but there are some areas that are very underdeveloped whereas there are sections that are over developed.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The images used are extremely difficult to understand if you're just a common person with no prior knowledge on the matter. The graphs are helpful, but only if you can understand them.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are lots of sections in discussion where the author responds too additives by other people.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall this article is well written but not outstanding. The way the author speaks is quite confusing if you were to read the article with no prior knowledge on the subject. There are a few sections that are completely unwritten whereas there are others that are very full.


 * 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?

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: