User:Iggie7/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: (link) Adrenaline
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It nicely blends together the course content and my neuroscience background.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Absolutely. It states that adrenaline is also known as epinephrine, is a hormone, and can be used for medication. This is the bare minimum I think someone needs to know about what adrenaline is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes and no. Yes in that it talks about the physiological effects of adrenaline, the mechanism of action, and history. However, the lead doesn't provide information that goes into body fluid measurement or biosynthesis, although I would argue that this is extraneous information and isn't appropriate for a Lead anyway.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead says that adrenaline is found in "many animals and some single cell organisms" but fails to expand on this anywhere in the article. It's not even specifically stated adrenaline is found in humans (although there is an obvious implication that it is).
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise, I liked it.

Lead evaluation
I give the lead a 4/5 stars, since it provides information that isn't further considered in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, there isn't really any deviation.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The most recent source is from 2014, so there's five years of research that this article is missing. I would say no.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As stated in the "Lead" section, I would talk about which organisms have adrenaline. It might be relevant to include some evolutionary history as well.

Content evaluation
I give it a 3/5 stars. The bare bones structure is there, but more can be done to be more comprehensive. I think the section on "Society and Culture-Strength" is also missing relevant information and doesn't make me feel like I know more about the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * It's alright, I think. Some sentences could do with a more neutral stance. The following sentence, for example, would be better off ending at "unclear:" "While the safety of its use during pregnancy and breastfeeding is unclear, the benefits to the mother must be taken into account." The second half, while obviously important to consider maternal safety, isn't really relevant.
 * "The findings from this study demonstrate that there are learned associations between negative feelings and levels of adrenaline." This is personal analysis that is not appropriate for the wikipedia site.
 * The following sentence also contains an opinion: "Although there is sufficient data which strongly recommends Adrenaline infusions as a viable treatment, more trials are needed in order to conclusively determine that these infusions will successfully reduce morbidity and mortality rates among preterm, cardiovascularly compromised infants."
 * The author is saying that the data present is sufficient, but who is he to say that? And for that matter, why say more trials are needed? If you don't know something is for certain, don't put it in.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nothing that is inherently biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * None.

Tone and balance evaluation
3/5 stars. The article doesn't really have anything that's overtly biased, but there is some sentences that are not objective and reflect the editor's own analyses.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. Several facts aren't even cited. Example: "It has been found that adrenergic hormones, such as adrenaline, can produce retrograde enhancement of long-term memory in humans."
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there's a variety of literature present.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Nope. Most recent source is from 2014.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Three out of three links work. that I tested.

Sources and references evaluation
3/5 stars, could use an update, but sources at least still work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is, but I personally think it could have been written more fluently. Take this sentence: "As a medication, it is used to treat a number of conditions including anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, and superficial bleeding." You can't start a sentence saying "it" since you haven't referred to what "it" is quite yet.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I strongly dislike the organization of this article. To me, it just doesn't make sense. Starting immediately with "Medical Uses" seems silly, since (presumably) the reader doesn't really know when epinephrine is. Why start with the applications of adrenaline before the reader even knows what it is? It makes absolutely no sense.

Organization evaluation
2/5 The organization is dreadful and I think sentence fluency is an issue.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. Include image of the adrenaline molecule, images of adrenaline and how it relates to other molecules in biosynthetic pathways.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, since the fish melanophores was the editor's own personal copy.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * As appealing as molecules can be laid out.

Images and media evaluation
5/5, everything is as it should be.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There was a merger proposal between epinephrine (medication) and adrenaline. Also a retracted article was cited (scandal!).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated B-class. It is part of the Phramacology, Medicine, Molecular and Cell Biology, and Chemicals WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have yet to talk about adrenaline in class.

Talk page evaluation
Not rated. There's nothing really going on.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is so close to being really good. Grammatical changes, structural reorganization, and current research would do a lot to improve it.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It's overall pretty comprehensive and doesn't skimp out on important information (biosynthesis and regulation, mechanism of action).
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Structural organization!!!!!!
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It's well-developed. I think if someone spent an honest few hours working on grammar and updates, this article would be solid.

Overall evaluation
3.5/5 stars, for the good head-start, but improvements that need to be made.

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: