User:Gensurg22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hereditary spherocytosis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
HS is prevalent in 1/2000 Northern Europeans, but also has strong prevalence in Japanese (this is interesting). The loss of one's spleen at an early age changes that individual's entire life, and adjusts the medical management of such patients - even down to the simple sinus infection. I have been personally interested in surgical topics for most of my life, and this is one close to me personally. Accurate information is crucial for all to access concerning HS.

Evaluate the article
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

No, it does not capture HS properly. It merely defines the definition of a erythrocyte-based hematological disorder.

   Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, the lead is disorganized, and the article's following structure does not correspond to what is referenced in the lead in a structured manner.

'''   Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)'''

No.

   Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is overly detailed, which makes it repetitive as an article overall.

 Content 

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes.

   Is the content up-to-date?

No.

   Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, there is much missing content in terms of medical management, for example.

'''   Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?'''

No.

 Tone and Balance 

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?

Yes.

   Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, mostly a non-debated topic.

   Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not applicable.

   Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Not applicable.

   Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article does lead with phrasing that references "no cure," which tends to push the reader into a position, as it pertains to research, therapies, and medical management prematurely.

 Sources and References 

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No, much of the article requires citation - they are missing.

   Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

No, they are insufficient. Beyond sources lacking renewal, the latest citation is from 2011 (over a decade old).

   Are the sources current?

No, please see above.

'''   Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?'''

Yes, the source material is very diverse. I was not able to determine if they were from historically marginalized individuals.

'''   Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)'''

Yes, there have been many advancements in therapies available for HS, and much has changed in the medical management.

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

Yes, they appear to work - one is taken to outdated source materials.

 Organization and writing quality 

The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is written well from the standpoint of stating facts as the time it was last refreshed; however, the structure of the article does not reflect what one would expect from a premiere medical encyclopedia, and is therefore insufficient. The lead needs demonstrate better correspondence to the structure of the article overall, and the article itself (content) needs refreshment and reorganization,

   Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, mainly grammar errors.

   Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

There are major sections, but they are presented in the wrong order for a medical encyclopedia, and there are categories missing entirely.

 Images and Media 

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

It contains a single image that insufficiently adds to the topic, as it is a single PBS without explanation for the reader.

Are images well-captioned?

It is captioned without explanation.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes.

   Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The image is in a good place.

 Talk page discussion 

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

No recent conversations have been had. The prior talk entries are from over 5 years ago, and relate more to article placement than the article itself.

'''   How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

This is a C-Class article of low importance within the WikiProject Medicine.

   How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Not applicable.

 Overall impressions 

What is the article's overall status?

Incomplete, outdated, and poorly structured.

   What are the article's strengths?

Presenting factoids concerning the topic of HS in a somewhat formatted manner.

   How can the article be improved?

The article needs up to date sources, needs to be reorganized, needs more sections (the present sections are not sufficient for understanding the medical management of HS, for example), and needs to be grammatically proofed once more.

'''   How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?'''

Moderately developed.