User:Jamiepatel1/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/RTT/Hypothyroidism)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it was in the WikiProjects and relates to hypothyroidism.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that briefly describes what hypothyroidism is. The lead also includes a brief description of the article's major sections. For example, it discusses symptoms, diagnosis, prevalence, treatment, etc. The lead does not contain information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The articles content is relevant and up to date. Most of the sources are from within the last 20 years. The ones that are not, however, are simply case studies being discussed from the 1800s. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. For example, it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article simply presents information, is neutral, and is unbiased. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Similarly, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented, and the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information and all the sources ae thorough. For example, the sources are all written by multiple authors from diverse backgrounds (including marginalized individuals) and they reflect the available literature about hypothyroidism. Most of the sources are from within the last 20 years. The ones that are not, however, are simply case studies being discussed from the 1800s.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is concise, clear, easy to read, and well written. They did a good job of breaking the information down by heading and simplifying it. There are no grammatical or spelling errors and, as implied in the previous sentence, the article is well-organized.


 * 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
 * The article consists of images that help us understand symptoms, myxedema coma, congenital hypothyroidism, the thyroid system, and model animals. The images are visually appealing, well captioned, and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The conversation itself is very informative. There is no one side or bias, The article is a part of the wikiprojects, but it is not rated. The discussion does not differ from the class's discussion.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's overall status was to inform. It's ability to simplify information to get the point across was a strength, but I think adding more pathophysiology could help improve it. Overall, I think the article was well-developed and an excellent resource.


 * 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?

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: