User:Jennairvine1/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: Parental brain
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Because I was curious about the topic after looking through the academic disciplines subcategories list here.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, "Displaying maternal sensitivity towards infant cues, processing those cues and being motivated to engage socially with her infant and attend to the infant's needs in any context could be described as mothering behavior and is regulated by many systems in the maternal brain".
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, "Research has shown that hormones such as oxytocin, prolactin, estradiol and progesterone are essential for the onset and the maintenance of maternal behavior in rats, and other mammals as well".
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise and only contains relevant information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It covers the different chemicals that cause the changes in the brains of both humans and other animals.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content seems update-to-date to me. I looked through the years in the references section and the most recent publishing year found was 2014.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. All information included is revenant to the topic and is explained well.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. It as an unbiased tone.
 * 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. The article focuses on informing the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. Many different sources are utilized.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. The sources used agreed with each other and explained a range of related points.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Mostly yes. The range of years I noticed in the reference section was between 1973-2014.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, both wikipedia and external links worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The article was straight to the point while also explaining the topics in detail.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Bolded subjects are used nicely and the paragraphs are in an order that blends well and makes sense.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. The article has an image of a parent and an infant when the focus was on how chemicals exchange during interactions between the two age categories.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes. It explains the topic and the picture well. "Skin-to-skin contact with a newborn helps to increase the mother's oxytocin".
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. It is correctly cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The image is next to the related text and the picture has good quality.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The last comment was from 2012, which recommended the article be split into two.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It was part of three projects back in 2012. The rating given was C-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We didn't go over this topic in English class, but the article goes more in depth about the science behind parental brains than a general health class would.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is still actively edited. Recently more information was added this February.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It writes about multiple related topics. It also uses good number of different sources throughout the article.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More recent sources could be used. Could also go more in depth about the topics already written about.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say this page is underdeveloped. It has a very solid base, covering the most important highlights of parental brains. But more recent information could be included. More could also be written about the topics already introduced. If the talk page were revived and more people collaborated, this page could greatly improve.

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:Parental brain