User:Katiesymonds/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 Bipolar"   (WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Bipolar)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate

I decided to evaluate this article because I enjoy learning more about disorders and how it can affect a person.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?     Yes, the very first sentence includes the definition of Bipolar disorder.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?    No, but the article is not very long. The first paragraph includes what a bipolar person would have to deal with on a daily basis.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?   No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and to the point about what the disorder is, what that person would have to deal with, some stats, and treatment options

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?   No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?   Yes, only about 3% of the population has bipolar disorder.

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?  There could be more information added.
 * Are the sources current?  kind of, mostly from 2010-2014, one from 2005.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  I am not sure.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  Yes, the links work.

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? No.
 * 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?  No.
 * 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 are none.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a wiki project, and I'm not sure where it would be rated.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This page is more definitions and broad information on the topic, while in class we may go more in depth.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? There were many links to the different words used, it was very well written and easy to follow.
 * How can the article be improved? There could've been pictures added as well as maybe more information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is well developed but could use a few more things.

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: