User:HunterVegas/Evaluate an Article

Hearing conservation program
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article was chosen because it is currently C-rated. It looks like links could be added, as well as more references to the page.

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?
 * I would say no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say it could use more detail and organization, maybe even include more than OSHA standards

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I'd say yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel like other standards could be added, like NIOSH. Also adding who can administer the testing protocols
 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I'd say so
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, it seems to be pretty straight forward and based on OSHA standards straight from the source
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't think so

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No --> in the section about influencing variables, there are no sources cited
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * i would say that the sources do cover a good majority of the information
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes and no --> it ranges from the 1990s to current. some of that may have to do with how standards havent changed much or quickly
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * maybe? I saw at least a handful of people had contributed on the talk page, but I am unsure what is considered a "diverse spectrum"
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * they work!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think the lead article is kinda all over the board and could definitely be cleaned up to make the page more clear about what will be discussed
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * none that I caught currently
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I'd say that there does seem to be a good flow in the organization

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is only one, but there is a link to a video as well. I think more photos (especially of people wearing hearing protection) would be a nice touch. Even photos of the different types of hearing protection would be beneficial
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * there is no caption under the photo in the lead section
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I'd say no
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I would again say no

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * This article is currently " within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia." The last edit on the actual talk page looks like it was 2018
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This has to do with wording of the information that was added and making sure that everything is cited correctly. Its more about how its being written than the actual writing

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-class, with mid importance
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * There is a lot of good, unbiased information on the page already
 * How can the article be improved?
 * more pictures, more links to other pages, other standards to be included (perhaps), references to back up information,
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that there is a good start, but it could use some polishing and tweaking

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: