User:JenniferESims/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/Simple OCD
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: The Wikipedia project my group is working on is an article about psychological disorders, specifically cluster B. Although OCD falls under cluster C, it has always interested me, so I chose this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence does a mediocre job of concisely describing the article's topic, as all it does is list some symptoms.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? This article doesn't really have "major sections." Each of it's paragraphs dealt with a different thing, but they were so small that in comparison with higher quality articles the whole thing just seemed like a drawn out introduction.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There isn't really a "lead."

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? If there's any content missing, I'm unaware of it, since I don't know much about the disorder. But there is no information on the article that doesn't belong there.

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.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are current, with the exception of one which was published in 1985.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, the fifth sentence reads "these activity" where it should say "these activities." This sentence and the next sentence could also be combined.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are part of links, so if you mouse over it it is shown.

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 are none.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I don't see a rating, but it is a project page.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't talked about OCD in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Not sure.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is very clear and has sources for every claim made.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could use a clearer lead sentence that summarizes the whole piece, and it could be longer.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped, but a good start.

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: