User:Lmccaslin/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: Listener fatigue
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * While looking for articles, I relied heavily on the hyperlinks to see what areas need attention. I came across auditory fatigue, but on the "Talk" page someone asked if auditory fatigue and listener fatigue were the same. This particular article has a C rating in Wikipedia and has been flagged for mostly using primary sources as references. I thought this would be a good article to critique and see what things have been done well and what needs more work.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does, however I think it could use a little bit more detail.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it seems like random tidbits of information on the subject. Some of these tidbits don't seem very accurate at first glance either.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it mentions that listener fatigue is still not well understood. This topic is not covered at all in later sections and I think if this claim is true it is an important dispute to discuss.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is short and seemingly concise. I am interested in the overall integrity of the information, though.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead seems like a good length, but there is some concern in the "Talk" section about verifying the information in this article. With this being said, I am feeling extremely skeptical of the entire article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content currently in the article is relevant to the topic. However, I think it is lacking in detail and other important topics to cover.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, this article was originally published in 2013 and the last edit was in 2018. While the facts in the actual subject have likely not altered much in the past 2 years, it would be important to update this page as a whole.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes! There seems to be some crucial components, including an overall discussion on what the topic is, the history of the research on it, psychoacoustic principles, etc. The "Treatment and Prevention" section seems like it may not belong, largely due to the content that is currently present.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think this is relevant for this article.

Content evaluation
The content is where this article seems to be suffering most. The few times it has been looked over by other editors, there are questions that arise. Even for myself, briefly looking over the page at first I could see there was plenty of content missing. The references also reflect the lack of content. This is a topic that could be combined with the auditory fatigue page and properly restructured and the content reworked.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Most of the article seems neutral, until the "Treatment and Prevention" tab. Here, the content has even been flagged by editors for biased material. Contributions from Asius Technologies seem to be promoting their product alone, rather than looking at the subject as a whole.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This particular company is promoting their product without mentioning any other information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes. There should be more information on the general options for people who may experience auditory fatigue.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It seems to reflect a sort of sales pitch rather than having an informative tone.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article has been flagged as not remaining neutral in some sections. It is clear reading through this article that it needs work in that regard, as well as the overall content.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I think the references that the article is backed by articles from reputable journals. However, this is what the information is primarily reliant on and Wikipedia supports use of more secondary and tertiary sources. There are also not very many resources used throughout the article. There should be more references present.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are all older primary resources, so these could definitely be updated with more recent resources, such as systematic reviews.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the newest source was written in 2013.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I'm unsure of this, but I'm also not sure this is entirely vital to the validity of the article's resources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes!

Sources and references evaluation
Along with the content needing more contributions, the references also need more attention. There needs to be more types of sources, rather than just primary sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The writing is overall pretty easy to understand, but I think it could use some editing and rewording in several areas.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * This article is pretty good with grammar/spelling errors. However, they did use some weird terminology here and there. For example, while describing the damage that can occur to stereocilia due to noise exposure, they used the word "regeneratable" instead of "regenerable".
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The organization could also use some major attention.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article's current organization is clear. There is no "flow" to the information though. It seems like the sections are a little out of order and could be flushed out in a bit more detail.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one image is used in the article to show the areas of the outer, middle, and inner ear. However, it is incorrectly labeled. There are other opportunities for other photos to enhance understanding, though.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one image is not labeled correctly.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I like the idea of how they laid out the image! They took an image of the ear and made note of the different colors in labeling the different parts of the ear. This is an effective way to show the layout of the auditory pathway through the outer, middle, and inner ear.

Images and media evaluation
This article is greatly lacking images and media. There are quite a few spots where images would be appropriate to further facilitate the reader's understanding. The one image that is in the article is labeled incorrectly, as well.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There have been several comments on the need to improve this article. People have noted the lack of credible sources according to Wikipedia's standards for medical articles, as well as the bias represented in one of the sections. Parts of the page have been flagged by these editors as needing attention.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is C-rated and under the WikiProject Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't covered auditory/listener fatigue in this class, however in psychoacoustics we looked at the psychological and physiologic aspects of the topic in more detail. I think it would appropriate for this article to have more detail in that realm.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page has been useful for people to point out the areas this article needs to improve, but it seems that some people are not using the most professional language in some comments. Some of the editors have a more hostile tone, using more pointed comments, which I don't think is appropriate. It is beneficial to provide constructive criticism and make edits, but while being respectful.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article was originally written for another Wikipedia Edu course in 2013. It seems like it needs attention in several areas and it is even shown in the C-rating of this article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's original author did try to find academic related articles from reputable journals, but I don't think they knew Wikipedia Medicine's emphasis on not using these types of resources. Some of the subtopics are important ones to cover, but do need to be flushed out more.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could use improvement in its overall structure, the content, and the references.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article seems to have not received complete effort when it was first published. So I would say it may have been poorly developed to start and is still underdeveloped today. It could use plenty of improvement and I think adding hyperlinks and tags to other pages would help to get it more attention when it has been improved.

Overall evaluation
The article can use improvement in many areas, it will just need the proper resources and time put into it. I think my comments above reflect my overall evaluation.

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: