User:Deanatrimble/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: WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple hearing loss
 * Hearing loss is an increasing issue with age, and is tied to other factors that are associated with mortality.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall the lead is clear and concise, and describes the article's topic. There are no major sections in this article. The lead discusses issues tied to hearing loss in children, adults, and elderly but does not mention it in the remainder of the article.


 * 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
 * The content in the article is all relevant to the topic. The article is out of date with its prevalence data in the last paragraph for hearing loss. The references for these numbers are five years and older. Overall, everything in the article appears to be relevant. There is nothing missing, although some paragraphs could have more detail.


 * 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
 * Overall the article appears to be neutral. There were no over- or underrepresented viewpoints. There was no persuasion present.


 * 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 most recent sources in this article are from 2015, which is five years old. This time gap is too old for the prevalence data provided in the article. All sources cites are reliable and current sources. All links are working.


 * 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
 * This article was clear, concise, and easy to read. There is one misplaced ">" symbol in a sentence of the second paragraph in the sentence about infection in pregnancy. The article feels relatively well-organized. However, the prevalence data is mentioned last and I would suggest moving the prevalence data up to an earlier paragraph.


 * 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
 * N/A


 * 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 is no talk page for this article.


 * 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 is a neutral, concise article. Everything in the article appears to be factual with reliable sources. The sources however are outdated for some parts such as the prevalence data included in the last paragraph. This article can be improved by updating the prevalence data with a more recent source and moving the prevalence data to an earlier part of the article instead of the end. This article could use some work in development as it is rather brief, and elaborate on some points made in the lead with related effects of hearing loss for children, adults, and the elderly.


 * 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: