User:Gmackey18/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: Infant Mortality
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The article has lots of grammatical errors and not all of the statistics are relevant (from 10+ years ago). The article is also somewhat poorly organized, so we would like to reformat some of it and get rid of redundant information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it includes a sentence stating the definition of infant mortality, the subject of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat, it includes some of the main causes of infant mortality and the utility of the statistic itself, as well as references to child mortality, which is a related statistic.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Most of the information is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed and redundant, and could be shortened.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Most of the content is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some of the content is from 10+ years ago- depending on what statistics are available, we could update it.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, I think there are some sections which pertain more to public health than infant mortality, specifically, and could potentially be shortened or removed.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Variable.
 * 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?
 * There are some grammatical errors and it jumps around from topic to topic, but it is easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Not really.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * One image.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Lots of conversations regarding the need to include a section on comparability between infant mortality rates based on a single article by one particular doctor.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Article is rated C-Class, and mid-, high- and low- importance for varying WikiProjects. It is part of the Death, Women’s Health, Medicine, and Economics WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It does not differ.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is a long, repetitive and disorganized article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It covers many topics.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Could be reorganized and shortened with removal of repetitive sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped/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: