User:JSUWM/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: Thyroid disease
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen this article because I have not done much research on Thyroid disease and am interested in learning more about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does concisely and clearly describe the topic by introducing what a thyroid disease is so anyone who is new to the subject would be able to grasp an understanding on the topic. The Lead includes 4 paragraphs which explain any general information about thyroid disease, but the main focus in the lead is on symptoms and treatments for this disease. The lead is concise and introduces readers to the topic immediately and quickly introduced symptoms/ treatments which is mainly what this article focuses on. Everything in the lead is present in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The article is divided into 6 sections. It starts off by explaining the different types of thyroid disease where it provides a short explanation of each. One thing I want to point out is the Signs/ Symptoms section in the table of contents. It is a bit odd that there are just symptoms for hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism listed in this section. In the next section (diseases), it goes on to elaborate more on hypo- and hyperthyroidism. I feel like the signs/ symptoms section can be added into the disease section so all the information on hypo- and hyperthyroidism can all be organized in one section altogether. Nonetheless, everything in the article relates to what thyroid disease is, the different types, symptoms, and treatments. I do feel as if the types of thyroid diseases could use more information. As I checked the history of the article, it seems up to dates with previous edits within this year. The article itself does not exactly address topics based on certain populations besides women and pregnancy. It has one small section where it briefly explains who is often affected by this disease such as those who live in low dietary iodine leveled areas.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I believe the article is neutral. Although, the article elaborates on women and pregnancy, I do not feel like it is biased because women are more often affected by this disease. In my opinion, everything in this article is represented appropriately. Although the "pathophysiology" section may seem as if it is over representing goiters and pregnancy, it is just a section that represents existing, but not rare occasions that thyroid disease arises from. All in all, this article is an informative article to provide a quick and general overview of thyroid disease.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts are backed up by a reliable source. However, some sources are not current such as this referenced (36) article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636722/. Other sources also do not work such as this referenced (5) article: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/endocrine/hyperthyroidism/Pages/fact-sheet.aspx.

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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well written and very easy to read. I did not feel uneasy reading this article and I learned a lot from it. I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors. I do feel like there can be some organization adjustments here and there such as the sign/ symptoms section. The article starts off by explaining what thyroid disease is and slowly works its way into elaborating on the abnormal changes of the body that could cause thyroid disease. Following, with allowing the audience to gain understanding of this topic, the article begins to explain the diagnosis and then treatments of this disease.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
There are a total of 5 images in this article. They all adhere to the copyright regulations and. Most of them are photos displaying physical of the disease, while the other photos are diagrams. The images are placed in the sections where the article is focused on that specific topic; therefore, it is visually appealing as there is a photo the reader can refer to.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated as C-class. It was part of a course assignment for a University. Although, Wikipedia suggests that more work can be done to this article, I don't have much knowledge on thyroid disease aside from reading this article so I would not be able to suggest anything to be added right not. However, as we discuss Thyroid disease later this month, I might have some ideas of things to add. Overall, it is a good article for a reader that is being introduced to the topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The articles strengths is definitely providing information on symptoms and diagnosis. I feel like the article needs a bit of organization, but nothing too extreme. I do believe the article is well developed, but I think there is some work still needed to be done.

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: Talk:Thyroid disease