User:LouiseBradley46/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: (link) List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It seemed interesting as I am looking to major in physical therapy and planing on getting a doctoral after.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes (This is the list of the fields of doctoral studies in the United States used for the annual Survey of Earned Doctorates, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies, as used for the 2015 survey.)
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes (These are fields of research-oriented doctoral studies, leading mostly to PhDs – in the academic year 2014–15, 98% of the 55,006 research doctorates awarded in the U.S. were PhDs; 1.1% were EdDs; 0.9% were other research doctorates. Professional degrees, though they are also considered doctorates (earned, not honorary), and do entitle the holder to call themselves "Doctor", such as MD, DDS, DVM, JD, DPharm, DMin and PsyD, are not included in the survey.)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is not over detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes (information from 2014-17)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No everything on the page is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes as it lists all the different fields of doctoral and not just one.
 * Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? A lot of it is, however it is hard to back up a list.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes and well categorized.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the article is well written and categorized nicely so that it is clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes very.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? N/A
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, three. (Wikiproject education, Wikiproject United States and Wikiproject lists)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Good source for educational purposes about doctoral fields.
 * What are the article's strengths? Its a well thought out list with good structure, which makes it clear. The information is easily accessible.
 * How can the article be improved? Add some images.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well developed article.

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: