User:Ewu19/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Medical illustration
 * Johns Hopkins Medicine played an interesting role in the history of medical illustration and, therefore, has a pertinent place in the history of the institution.

Lead evaluation
The lead consists of only one sentence, which provides a broad and relevant definition of the topic. Though concise, the lead provides no description of the article's major sections aside from the table of contents.

Content evaluation
The article's content, which delves into the history of medical illustration, relevant professions, education programs and different techniques, are all pertinent aspects of the topic. With the article's focus being primarily on the history and education, these two sections have the most content and appear to be up-to-date, with recent additions to the list of significant degree programs for medical illustration.

Tone and balance evaluation
As the article's primary focus is on the history and the recent creation of the medical illustration career, the article successfully maintains neutrality, for the most part, by simply stating the facts without making any claims or presenting bias. Only a minute section appears to have elements of bias. Under the "Profession" category, the author began a sentence with the "obvious abilities necessary are...," which can be interpreted as informal tone and a personal opinion.

Sources and references evaluation
With the amount of content presented in the article, seven reference sources appear to be sufficient. However, certain sections, namely "Technique," lack citations altogether. The sources and citations from hopkinsmedicine.org and nih.gov are no longer current, as the links opens up to an error page. With that said, the other sources are all reliable secondary ones, with the use of biographies instead of autobiographies.

Organization evaluation

 * The article is well-written with a clearly organized structure highlighting the key aspects of the topic. For the most part, the categories reflected integral parts of medical illustration, the only outlier being the "Technique" element. Not only was it lacking in proper citations, the section's main point could have been stated more concisely without the need for a separate section. Parts of the "Technique" section had been covered in previous sections, so dedicating a separate category to it was redundant.

Images and media evaluation
Given that the article was about medical illustration, there seemed to be insufficient supporting images. Two detailed anatomical images appeared in the right summary box, with lengthy captions and links to relevant topics. Citations were included for the images within the box. Two other images appeared in their own section, "Additional images," with links to their website. No other images were included for the other four sections, which is a lacking detail.

Talk page evaluation
Eight different topics of conversation are present in the talk page, with the most prominent being replacing an image in the article, removing references to current illustrators, and including information about medical illustration in the courtroom. The image issue revolves around an image being done by a physician rather than a medical illustrator and the suggesting user thought the article should represent medical illustration in its entirety. Another user saw references to currently active illustrators as advertisements for them and should be removed. The article does not appear to be rated or part of any WikiProjects. Wikipedia's discussion of this topic on the talk page delves deeper into the minute details of the article's content and structure.

Overall evaluation
The article is fairly well-written and structured, with good historical and educational content. The article presents many links within articles to relevant topics and people, and introduces new accredited degree programs. However, the article could include more images, better and more citations, and a condensing of certain categories. Overall, the article is rather well-developed but could undergo some minor changes.

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: