User:Katjenkins0520/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.


 * have chosen Cystic fibrosis as my article for the article evaluation.
 * I chose this article for my evaluation because of my personal experience with Cystic Fibrosis. I believe my insight may be useful for this article, and therefore, I want to give it a look over and see if things line up from what I’ve experienced.

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 lead for this article generally sums up the entire premise of this article. There are no discrepancies from what I can see, and the information is not overwhelming to the reader. The citation for the article so far is also from scientific & healthcare studies, so we’re getting information that is backed and fits the nature of this article. The information that is covered in this lead is delved further into as the article continues. The only issue that I was able to come across was that despite being mentioned at the beginning, kidneys are barely mentioned later on during it.

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?

Content evaluation
Since the content of this article is related to Cystic Fibrosis there are no issues in having it present in the article. So far the information cited has also been within the past few years, so there are no issues with keeping the information up-to-date. Something that should be added to this article is the mentioning of kidneys either somewhere in the signs & symptoms section or under the endocrine.

Another section that could use improvement is the research section of the article. Within the past few years there have been many new discoveries and strides for curing CF, and the section is severely lacking despite this new abundance of content. The history section is also lacking, but after giving a quick search over the history of CF this is reasonable since there is little documentation on the topic in regards to history before the 1900’s.

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
Overall, the article is fitting of the unbiased, neutral tendencies that are fitting for a scientifically based document. Given the nature of the article there is very little for the article to be biased about since there is cited evidence to follow along with the content. There are sections of the article that may be underrepresented, but these sections are not essential for understanding the current stance of the disease in today’s society.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Given the fact that there are over 100 sources for this topic it is well documented and cited. I looked through several of the links and found no issues with accessing the content except for being faced by the wall of subscriptions for most of these journals. Most of these sources are within the past few years, or after the year 2000 at the very least, so most of the content is not too far from today’s standards. There are also several types of literature mentioned from studies, scientific journals, to informative news articles.

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
The only issues I came across when it came to the organization of the article is that it is very verbose. This is a given because of the scientific nature of the article, but this can also lead to a reader being lost in the amount of content provided. It’s already difficult to not lose a reader because of the scientific knowledge they have to shift through, but when it is overly worded it can make it even worse. Otherwise, the sections are fitting and are set in a logical order. There are little to no errors when it comes to the grammatical structure of spelling in this article.

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
There are very little images provided in the article, but for the ones that are provided there are no issues in sight. The captions for each of the pictures describe them well and the pictures are not placed in any inappropriate sections.

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
There are only a few topics of conversation on this page since Wikipedia marked this talk section as only for improvements on the article. Overall the rating for this article is a B, and it is Highly Important based on their standards.

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
The article is a strong document with very little issues, but like every other article there are still things that can always be improved upon. The article has many citations that make for a strongly sourced paper. Most of the issues are simply a lack of knowledge or a few nit-picky things that can be easily resolved. A few additions could be made to recently discovered methods of treating the disease as well as other findings within the past few months.