User:DavidLang1973/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: Diacetyl
 * This article is a very important topic in occupational safety and health because it provides a very clear example of an exposure in the workplace causing a specific illness.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it does
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise but is lacking in a full summary of the information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Not completely, it does not discuss things such as vaping liquids which contain diacetyl.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The work safety section is still incomplete.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Seemingly it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It does not appear so
 * 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?
 * Most of them are, however this certainly needs updating.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are good
 * Are the sources current?
 * Relatively so, not many from the last 5 years
 * 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?
 * It is concise but still lacks a fully robust explanation and jumps around somewhat
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The organization is ok, it still needs improving.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It includes chemical structure pictures, but nothing else
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * These are on the side bar, so not captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Again these images are on the sidebar, but are good images of the chemical structure.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * No conversations have occurred since 2017, the latest involved only a mention of the modification of external links. Earlier conversations centered around the science.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C class and is part of 4 different projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It doesnt

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The major sections are laid out. There is a good discussion of diacetyls basic properties.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More robust lead is essential, and more references for the content.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is moderately developed but needs many improvements.

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: