User:Jerriljacob/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

I am evaluating the article titled Vitamin K deficiency bleeding.

Link: Vitamin K deficiency bleeding

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I was interested in discussing this topic as a subsection in the article I am editing. This article talks about the importance of vitamin K injections for newborns to help prevent Vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). It touches on the signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of the problem which provide a quick summary of what VKDB really is.Preliminary Impression of the article:

No dialog in the talk page. It is classified by Wikipedia as a start-class article and would benefit from additional editing. Even though the article is start-class, it gives an overall idea of what VKDB is and what can be done in order to prevent it in newborns. The headings provide easy navigation of the page and makes finding the information very easy.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:

Content:
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence gives the reader an overall idea of what VKDB.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does discuss the articles major sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead can be reduced slightly. Some of the information can be discussed in the body of the article and this can help make the lead section look more concise.

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most of the references used in this article are more than 5 years old. Content should be edited with new references to have a more up-to-date presentation of the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content presented in the article belongs.

Sources and References:
 * 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, this article presents information about VKDB and does not attempt to persuade the readers to take any actions. It talks about the importance of vitamin K injects in newborns, but does so from a neutral stand point.

Organization and Writing Quality:
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, in the body of the section labeled Causes, there is a sentence by the editor that is not cited with a reference. It is unknown where the idea the editor was trying to present is pulled from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are 8 references used in this article and some sections only use one reference. I believe more reference can be found on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the references used are over 5 years old, some even being from the 90s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * One requires login information, another requires purchasing the book, and another can not be found when using the link provided. One of the guidelines used was replaced by the original publisher. Overall, most of the links provided are inaccessible.

Images and Media:
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written. It is easy to read and provides information that is easy to find and understand.
 * 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

Talk Page Discussion:
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. It provides a picture of the structure of vitamin K and also a table classifying the onset of VKDB.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall Impressions:
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * No discussions currently on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is part of WikiProject Medicine.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is in the beginning stages and can benefit from additional editing with newer references.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is easy to understand and provides the information in a visually pleasing manner. The work is concise and presents the major ideas about the topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I would recommend adding more references in each section because it can help improve ones understanding of the topic. More information from different sources can also increase the detail presented in each section. I would also recommend using newer references and those that are accessible by the reader so they can look up the source and read more if they want to. The lead section can also be edited to make it more concise.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is in the beginning stages so it is underdeveloped and can use more editing.