User:Lilaclouise/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Uterine Fibroids


 * Article Evaluation
 *  Lead section  : The article has a strong, clear, and concise introductory sentence that describes the article's topic.However the article's lead doesn't go into much detail regarding the article's major sections. There is no information that actually doesn't belong within the lead section of the article. The lead is not overly concise but detailed enough.
 *  Content:  The content is  relevant to the topic. The oldest content that has been added to this article is from 2015, so no the content within the article is not up-to-date.  There could possibly be content or information missing due to how out-of-date the article actually is.  The topic doesn't deal with any of wikipedia equity gaps but this topic is one that is underrepresented.
 *  Tone and Balance:  The article is executed from a neutral point of view, it states the facts, informational and data about the topic.  none of the information within the topics that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position, no view points are overrepresented or underrepresented.  any minority or fringed viewpoints were accurately stated as such but it is outdated. the article does not attempt to persuade you towards another viewpoint, it simply states the information they've collected.
 *  Source and References : the sources are reliable and thorough. the sources are about six years old and older, so they're not current. the authors are a spectrum and diverse, however the article could benefit from some more current sources. the links within the article do work.
 *  Organization and Writing quality:  the article is clear, concise and well written; without any grammatical or spelling errors. the article is well-organized.
 *  Images and Media:  the images within the article do help with the comprehension of the topic by allowing the reader to view a visual of the many different forms of fibroids. yes all the images included were captioned and had a link to the resource. the images do adhere to wikipedia copyright regulations. the images are not visually pleasing but do have a flow to them.
 *  Talk page Discussion:  there were many conversations that happened within the talk page -- many of the conversations ranged from simply not liking the article to the deletion of information that was found to be unnecessary to the topic at hand.  The article falls within the wikiproject medicine but because the article has a B ranking, it is not totally included in this wikiproject.  we have not talked about such a topic within class but having had experience with the topic, the information on the page is scares.
 *  Overall Impressions:  this article is not strong at all, it has solid information but it is seven years out of date. it was 2015 from the last time that the project has been edited. the article's strength lies within the sources picked. the article can be improved but adding a current sources maybe more diversity. this article is underdeveloped.

Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Leiomyoma


 * Article Evaluation
 *  Lead Section:  This article has a strong, clear, and concise introductory sentence that describes the article's topic.However the article's lead doesn't go into much detail regarding the article's major sections. There is no information that actually doesn't belong within the lead section of the article. The lead is not overly concise but detailed enough.
 *  Content:  The content is relevant to the topic. The oldest content that has been added to this article is from 2011 but the article was updated in 2017, so no the content within the article is not up-to-date.  There could possibly be content or information missing due to how out-of-date the article actually is.  The topic doesn't deal with any of wikipedia equity gaps but this topic is one that is underrepresented.
 *  Tone and Balance:  The article is executed from a neutral point of view, it states the facts, informational and data about the topic.  none of the information within the topics that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position, no view points are overrepresented or underrepresented.  any minority or fringed viewpoints were accurately stated as such but it is outdated. the article does not attempt to persuade you towards another viewpoint, it simply states the information they've collected.
 *  Sources and References:  the sources are reliable and thorough. the sources are ten years old or older, so they're not current. the authors are a spectrum and diverse, however the article could benefit from some more current sources. the links within the article do work.
 *  Organization and Writing Quality:  the organization of the article is moderate but it could use an update.
 *  Images and Media:  there are only three images present within the article but they do go with the flow of the topic.
 *  Talk page Discussion:  the talk page discussions were mainly that of recommending sources or approaches to them. a Wikipedian added a source with live media that they thought would help the topic/article. the talk page was relatively short due to lack of activity since 2017.
 *  Overall Impressions:  this article is very rough around the edges and lacks a lot of information. it feels rushed. i feel as though this is a great article to add too in the future.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Uterine Myomectomy


 * Article Evaluation
 *  Lead Section:  This article does not have a strong, clear, and concise introductory sentence that describes the article's topic.The article's lead doesn't go into much detail regarding the article's major sections. There is no information that actually doesn't belong within the lead section of the article. The lead is not concise and lacks details.
 *  Content:  The content is relevant to the topic. The oldest content that has been added to this article is from 2018, so no the content within the article is not up-to-date.  There could possibly be content or information missing due to how out-of-date the article actually is.  The topic doesn't deal with any of wikipedia equity gaps but this topic is one that is underrepresented.
 *  Tone and Balance:  The article is executed from a neutral point of view, it states the facts, informational and data about the topic.  none of the information within the topics that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position, all of the view points are underrepresented.  any minority or fringed viewpoints were not accurately stated as such and are outdated. the article does not attempt to persuade you towards another viewpoint, it simply states the information they've collected. not enough information was collected regarding this topic.
 *  Sources and References:  the sources are reliable and thorough. the sources are not current. the authors are not on a spectrum or diverse, they mainly range from hospitals to journals. however the article could benefit from some more current sources. the links within the article do work.
 *  Organization and Writing Quality:  the organization of the article is moderate but it could use an update.
 *  Images and Media:  there are only one image present within the article, this topic could use many more images or media to help with the flow. this article could benefit from a short media clip of the procedure being preformed.
 *  Talk page Discussion:  the talk page was relatively empty due to lack of activity.
 *  Overall Impressions:  this article is very rough around the edges and lacks a lot of information. it feels rushed. i feel as though this is a great article to add too in the future.


 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Benign Metastasizing Leiomyoma


 * Article Evaluation
 *  Lead Section:  This article does not have a strong, clear, and concise introductory sentence that describes the article's topic.The article's lead doesn't go into much detail regarding the article's major sections. There is no information that actually doesn't belong within the lead section of the article. The lead is not concise and lacks details. this article is short and unfinished.
 *  Content:  The content is relevant to the topic. The oldest content that has been added to this article is from 2018, so no the content within the article is not up-to-date.  There could possibly be content or information missing due to how out-of-date the article actually is.  The topic doesn't deal with any of wikipedia equity gaps but this topic is one that is underrepresented.
 *  Tone and Balance:  The article only has a few sentence present, so i cannot accurately debated on whether the tone is neutral or not.
 *  Sources and References:  the sources are reliable and thorough. the sources are not current. the authors are not on a spectrum or diverse, they mainly range from hospitals to journals. however the article could benefit from some more current sources. the links within the article do work.
 *  Organization and Writing Quality:  the organization of the article is no existent since it only has a few sentences but it could use an update.
 *  Images and Media:  there are no images present within the article, this topic could use many more images or media to help with the flow. this article could benefit from a short media clip of the procedure being preformed.
 *  Talk page Discussion:  the talk page was relatively empty due to lack of activity but it is however included within the wikiproject Medicine.
 *  Overall Impressions:  this article is very rough around the edges and lacks a lot of information. it feels rushed and forgotten. someone started this article and felt that it no longer warranted any more attention.


 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources