User:Jth8769/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: Talk:Blood
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article is relevant to the course I am currently taking.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? No
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is missing content

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 viewpoints are represented.
 * 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? There are no sources found in this topic page.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources were used in this topic page.
 * Are the sources current? N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links present in this topic page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No. This article has many grammatical areas and problems with sentence structure.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are many grammatical errors present.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. This article does not appear to have sections that apply to the major topic. This article also has poor organization.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No. This article does not include any media.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?N/A

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 does not appear to be any discussions or conversations happening about this topic on the page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated as a C-class and mid to high importance. This topic is part of three different WikiProjects including anatomy, physiology, and cardiology/hematology-oncology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The discussion of blood on this wikipedia page is not thorough or correct. It is missing important information about blood and does not educate the reader well. In class there was more thorough information discussed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article appears to be unfinished.
 * What are the article's strengths? One strength of this article is its discussion of the thickness of blood.
 * How can the article be improved? This article could be improved with more detailed information with the inclusion of sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article does not appear complete. It also appears both underdeveloped and 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: