User:Leea98/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: Duct tape occlusion therapy
 * I was browsing the a list of C-Class Alternative medicine articles, and the title caught my eye.

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 is concise and clearly describes the article's topic, duct tape occlusion therapy (DTOT). The Lead does not include any description of the article's major sections. Additionally, the Lead includes information that is not present in the article (i.e., importance of the type of adhesive; side effects; clinical trials performed in 2012).

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 article's content is relevant to the topic, however, the most recent study that the article discusses was conducted in 2012, and the article itself has not been edited since 2015. The article is missing information in many respects, including: details on the administration of DTOT, possible mechanisms by which DTOT functions, information on side effects, the effects of different types of tape. The article does not address Wikipedia's equity gaps, and does not discuss historically underrepresented populations or topics.

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 neutral, and does not attempt to persuade the reader of the effectiveness of DTOT as a treatment for warts. The article presents both positions equally, and is not heavily biased towards either.

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
Most of the facts are backed up by references, however, some of these are not reliable. There seems to be a limited body of evidence on this topic: the sources used are not current, with the most recent being published in 2012, and only a small number of studies are discussed. The sources are not written by historically marginalized individuals. The links are functional.

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 not particularly well-written or difficult to read, however, it does not "flow" well. In terms of organization, the article consists only of the Lead and an "Evidence" section - it may benefit from additional sections, such as "Side Effects" or "Mechanisms of action".

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 does not include any images or media.

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 has been inactive for over 5 years, and consists mainly of suggestions on how to improve the article. Several comments express concern regarding the studies/sources referenced in the article, while other users commented that they used this treatment themselves and found it to be effective. The article is rated as being C-Class and could be considered under the Alternative medicine WikiProject.

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 very brief: it begins by discussing DTOT, a possible treatment for warts, then presents several studies that refute and support this treatment. The article would benefit from referencing additional studies, and could include additional information on the treatment, its effects, and its possible mechanisms to give readers a more complete picture of DTOT. Overall, I would assess the article is under developed: it does not fully discuss some of the ideas it mentions, and does not inform the reader on important details regarding this treatment.

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: