User:Littleblackraincloud/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: Nitrogen Mustard
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose Nitrogen Mustard because I've never heard of it before, and because it's kind of a funny name. Also, it was under the carcinogen section of the toxicology group, so it's related to the class in some way.

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 encompasses all of the important points listed above. It is concise and easy to understand as well as introduces factors that are expanded upon in successive sections.

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 content is relevant to the topic, though I think it could be updated since most of the sources are from the 60s-00s. The chemical warfare section is disorganized and the statements made do not connect well. I think the section should be separated into two sections titled "history" and "role in chemotherapy." Furthermore, the article does not relate at all to underrepresented populations. I also think it's interesting that the article is listed under the "carcinogen" section of toxicology, when it is described as a blistering agent (no mention of it being cancer-causing) and also as a chemotherapeutic agent. I assume it is organized as such because it is related to cancer in general.

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 the claims are not biased. I don't think the article tries to persuade anyone since there isn't much of a good/bad stance to take on it. The chemotherapeutic viewpoint is spread out over the article and makes it feel unbalanced.

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
At first glance most of the sources are from government agencies or peer-reviewed journals, so it appears to be reliable information. Only three of the 20 sources are from the last 10 years so I doubt that the article is as thorough as it could be in reflecting available literature. Most of the authors are (I assume) English/American men, though there are some Iranian and Chinese authors as well. It also didn't look there were any female authors. I clicked on most of the links and they all 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
Most of the article is concise and readable, though the mechanism of action section is highly technical in language and not understandable to people unfamiliar with chemistry. It also uses quite a few acronyms which get lost as you read on. It leads to backtracking which wastes time. I definitely think the article can be better organized as it delves into the major points in a fragmented manner. I didn't see any grammatical or spelling errors but I think some portions of the text could be reworded for clarity and ease of flow.

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
It has images of three specific nitrogen mustards that "can be used for chemical warfare purposes." The captions are their names, but doesn't go into any further detail. I think the main photo should be of the functional group that makes a compound a nitrogen mustard, as is mentioned in the first sentence of the Lead. The pictures in the article should be kept to the chemical warfare section since it lists them in that section. The images adhere to copyright regulations as they were made by a user who edited the page.

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 is only one post on the Talk page (from 2009) about how something was removed because it didn't make any sense. The article is part of the WikiProjects Pharmacology, Environment, Chemistry, and Medicine/Toxicology. It is rated as low importance start-class for all of them. We haven't talked about nitrogen mustards in particular but they are "cytotoxic organic compounds" which reminds me of the chrysanthemum-derived insecticide we did talk about, though nitrogen mustards are synthetic instead of natural.

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 has strengths in its neutral tone and source-backed content, but the organization of the article is in need of improvement. I also feel it's a bit underdeveloped and needs to incorporate more recent information.

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: