User:JM1915/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: WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force AD/RTT/Simple
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because Alzheimer's Disease has been my main topic of interest for a while. I am interested in learning the specific causes of Alzheimer's Disease and possible treatment options.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? --> No, but the article itself does.
 * 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.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? --> No.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? --> Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? --> I don't believe so. The article was last updated in 2018. I am sure that science has made many discoveries since then.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? --> No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? --> No it does not.

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.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? --> Yes, the article uses published articles and other sources, like the NIH.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? --> yes.
 * Are the sources current? --> They are current up until 2018.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? --> Yes.
 * 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?
 * 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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images are present.
 * Are images well-captioned? --> No images are present.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? --> No images are present.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? --> No images are present.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations are present.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes it is part of Wiki Projects. Rating is not present.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The topic is different. Our topic in class has been related to diabetes and leptin.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This is not present
 * What are the article's strengths? It addresses a wide range of issues that are present regarding AD.
 * How can the article be improved? The article needs to be more descriptive and updated.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is very brief and not detailed enough.

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: