User:Khira.francis/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: Itai-itai disease
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I am interested in seeing the additive effects of toxicants in the human body.

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 has an introductory sentence that clearly states what Itai Itai disease is and includes only some of the article's major sections. The only thing in the lead not discussed in the article is the Four Big Pollution Disease of Japan, but a link to that article is at the end of the page after the references.

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? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The articles content is relevant and somewhat up to date. There is a lot of missing content and does not deal with a historically underrepresented topic or population.

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
The article is fairly neutral and does not attempt to persuade the reader toward any position.

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
Some of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source. The sources are not very thorough or current. They do not appear to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors. One of the links does not work.

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 article is well written and has no appreciable grammatical or spelling errors. It is also well organized.

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 no images in the article.

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 discusses some inconsistencies in the dates in the article, as well as some potentially missing and incorrect information on cadmium poisoning. The article is part of the WikiProject Medicine and is C-rated. The way Wikipedia discusses it does not differ from the way we spoke 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
The article is not very detailed, but is very well written for what is there. It does not appear to focus very heavily on the science related topics, but the social justice and legal side. Improvements can be made by fact-checking everything, including more information on the mechanisms behind the cadmium poisoning, and including secondary sources for everything. The article is fairly underdeveloped.

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: Talk:Itai-itai disease