User:Kylee.roush/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: Neuroscience of music
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because it presents information on some topics we have already covered in class while also bringing in other aspects that we have not talked about. It also presents an overarching look at the role music plays in various parts of the brain. The contents of the article also present a very detailed yet well-rounded list of subsets that look at the role that music plays in the study of the brain.

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 article contains the title of the article while explaining the correlation between the two topics being presented: neuroscience and music. Following the introductory sentence is a list of the main topics the article will cover in both the specific aspects of music as well as the different fields of science that contribute to the article. All of the mentioned topics appear with adequate description and explanation later in the article. The introductory clause of the article is concise yet sufficient in setting the audience up for the discussed topics.

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:
- All of the topics discussed in the article provided a relevant yet detailed description of the article's subject. While many of the provided sources are older than 2010, the role of music in the field of neuroscience is not as researched as some other topics, making the provided information relatively up-to-date. In my opinion, all of the content provided is pertinent to the article in that even if it does not directly tie in on the surface level, the author explains the correlation enough to show it's purpose in the piece. While there is no direct mention of any equity gaps, one can infer that uncommon therapies such as the therapeutic use of music in memory loss are more likely to be accessible by people who have the means to access more than base-level healthcare.

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 presents a neutral viewpoint as it simply presents the scientific facts and shows the established correlations between music and various parts of the brain. The purpose of the article is to inform the audience rather than to persuade or push an agenda.

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 links that I clicked worked and led me to a secondary source that I would deem as reliable upon first impression. There is a multitude of sources provided, with 93 citations and an abundance of external links on various topics provided throughout the article. As previously mentioned, there are not a lot of articles from the past decade provided in the list of sources, but this is probably due to the lack of current research on this topic rather than the fault of the author. After looking at the talk page of the article, I realized that the article is from 2009, making it clear why there are not more current sources provided.

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 structured well in that it gives an evolution of information by starting with basic definitions of concepts and then transitioning into more in-depth analysis of the role that these terms play in various aspects of science. There were not distracting grammatical or spelling corrections to be made. While there is a lot of information provided to the reader, there was not the sense of wordiness or over explanation.

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
- The article provided three images with detailed captions to help aid the reader's understanding of the presented concepts. However, due to the length of the article, I felt as though there could have been a couple more images, or maybe just better spacing between the images that were provided which has more to do with the visual appeasement of the images rather than the quality of the images themselves. To my understanding all of the images adhere to the copyright regulations.

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
- This article was part of three WikiProjects, one of which is inactive, and the other two being ranked as mid and low importance. The comments on the article were very critical at points, talking about how it would be easier to discard the article as a whole and start from scratch rather than try to fix what was originally written. I was surprised at how minute things like the placement of an "and" or "or" led to people questioning the credibility of the article as a whole. I felt that the information provided aligned well with what has been presented in class thus far.

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
- I would say that the article did a good job in providing a well rounded explanation of the correlations between music and neuroscience. They provided a broad range of topics and did a good job of tying each topic back to the main point. In terms of improvement, I would say that each piece of cited information should be checked for an accurate citation as some people talked about certain information being cited by the wrong sources. I would rate this article as well-developed due to the good basis presented by the original author as well as the numerous amount of edits that have occurred over the past 11 years.