User:Katewolshon11/Evaluate an Article

Evaluating "Falls in Older Adults"
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Falls in Older Adults
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I want to expand my knowledge on editing wikipedia articles.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
The introductory sentence of the lead is pretty strong, it gives good insight into how serious falls in older adults can be. The lead includes a brief description of some of the article's sections, but not all of them. That could be improved. The author touched on geriatric medicine in the beginning, and it think it would be important to elaborate on that more.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps?

Content evaluation:
The article's content is fully relevant to the topic. The content appears to be slightly outdated, some parts more than others. I think that all of included content included should stay, but I think they need more detail. I don't think this article deals with a wikipedia equity gap.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation:
This article is neutral. I don't see any claims that appear to be biased one way or another. I don't think there are any views that are either overrepresented or underrepresented in this article. I don't think there is any persuasion involved in this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
All of the sources cited in this article appear to be reliable and thorough. Some of the sources are current, but any of the are outdated and need to be replaced. Many of the authors of these articles seem to be diverse, which is good. The links given here work. There seems to be a few citations that need fixing as well.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation:
I thought this article was very easy to read. I didn't notice any grammar or spelling errors when I read it. I think it's pretty well organized, but the sections are not nearly large enough.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation:
This article does a decent job of using photos to aid in the learning process. They are all captioned well. I believe that they also adhere to the copyright regulations. I think that a few more pictures could definitely be added though.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation:
The talk page mainly consists of conversations about edits that need to be made, or that have already been made. The article is a part of WikiProject Medicine, and it is rated a C (which is low). The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is very similar to the discussions we have had about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation:
Overall, this article is complete but it could really use some extra information. I would add more information about how specific medicines have an impact on falls in older adults. I would also add more description in the lead paragraph about some of the topics within the article. Another thing I would like to add more about would be more ways to prevent these falls because there is a very limited amount of information given about this. Another weak area I see is epidemiology in relation to falls in older adults, so I would fix this by adding more information about it because as of now there isn't much. There are also a few citations that appear to need fixing. Lastly, I would like to include more instances of research on this topic, because there was only one given. In order to fix all of these things, I would use UpToDate articles (especially the one I picked apart earlier this semester) and possibly some articles from the school's library.

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: