User:Farheem/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: 1% rule (aviation medicine)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article talks about aerospace practices and I'm interested in learning more about AE as it is my major. Also it's a short article so I figure there may be room to add more and enhance the knowledge shared in this article

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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No but the lead is very short and there aren't really any other sections in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation
This article opens with a lead that describes what the 1% rule is clearly and takes time to explain the topic clearly. It doesn't include a description of the major sections but it is a short article with only one section really so this may not be required.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes

Content evaluation
The content seems up to date however there is some information missing such as where the article says: "The civil aviation regulatory authorities of some nations employ such numerical risk thresholds while others do not.". Which nations would be useful to know.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral and provides the facts. It mentions controversy on this topic but does not take a side.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Proper citations seem to be missing. Links work but more sources would make this article stronger.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * No grammatical errors and easy to read and understand. It's not broken into sections.


 * 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 article does not include images or any visuals.


 * 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


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page doesn't have any open conversations so there doesn't seem to be anything going on behind the scenes. It is part of the Aviation WikiProject and the '''WikiProject Medicine. I'''t is rated as C-Class on the former's quality scale and Start-Class on the latter's quality scale.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is to the point and allows the reader to understand what the 1% rule is in aviation medicine right away however it lacks proper sources to back up the information, lacks proper citing and can be improved if images or tables/graphs with supporting information were added. I would say the article is underdeveloped

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: