User:Jvnon/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cannabinol

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 the page for cannabinol because I have a personal interest in the medical applications of cannabis. Of the cannabis related pages to select from, the cannabinol page had the least amount of content. When I checked this page I was surprised by how small the article was I'm not entirely sure if this was the best decision as this may mean more work for me or if the fact that it has such a small amount of content that it will end up being easier. Regardless, because of the page has little content I will likely have a higher change of being to contribute something useful to the page.

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
Lead describes the article's topic thoroughly considering the length of the article as a whole.

Lead lacks a description of the legality section and has little content concerning the chemistry of cannabinol.

Lead does not include any information not present in the article.

Lead is condense and concise and if anything lacks substance.

Content
Content is relevant to the topic.

Content is up to date for the most part. but could include content from recent research.

Clinical data mentions routes of administration is “oral, inhaled” while the only image on the page is of a transdermal patch.

No mention of any populations, underrepresented or otherwise. Only group of people is the DEA.

Tone and Balance
Article remains neutral.

No biased viewpoints are present.

Only overrepresentation is the only legality status mentioned in the body of the article is legality in the United States. Other legal status mentioned is legal status in Canada and the UK.

No real fringe viewpoints are present.

No persuasion attempts are present.

Sources and References
Facts are backed by reliable secondary sources.

Could include more sources as page is further fleshed out.

Most citations are from the past few years, others are between 10-15 years old excluding two, one from 1978, and one from 1997.

Could include more diverse authors.

Seems that all sources are from peer-reviewed articles or books written on the topic.

All citation links work.

Organization and Writing Quality
Article is concise, clear, and easy to read.

Article has no spelling or grammatical errors.

Sections are separated well but additional important sections should be included.

Images and Media
The cover image includes an image of the chemical makeup of cannabinol which is relevant to the topic. The only other image is a transdermal cannabinol patch from a cannabis dispensary which is relevant to the topic but only lightly relevant to the page in its current state.

Images are well captioned.

Images are original works of contributors.

The image of the transdermal patch should not be next to citations but the page itself does not have much room to put it elsewhere.

Talk Page Discussion
A post from 2021 regarding the specifics of legality of cannabinol with a reply talking about FDA regulations as they are stated in the 2018 Farm Bill. Some of this conversation could be out of date as laws regarding hemp derivatives may have changed.

This article is a start class. It does not seem to be part of a WikiProject.

We have not yet talked about this topic in class.

Overall Impressions
In 2007 the article was considered a stub but is now a starter-class article.

The article only gives a small amount of information on the topic but has a decent bit of the chemistry of cannabinol included.

The article would most benefit from more content.

The article has a lot of room to grow as it is currently underdeveloped.