User:Lyang82/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:Alternative cancer treatments
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I look through the C-class articles and selected "C-class medicine" to find an article related to this class. I then scrolled through the list of wikipedia articles under "C-class medicine" and selected the article "Alternative cancer treatments". I chose this article because in the film we watched in class, an oncologist was facing challenges in determining the best treatment for his patient.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly defines what alternative cancer treatment is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead gives background information about alternative cancer treatments instead of briefly describing the article's major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the Lead talks about concerns of alternative cancer treatments, which is not present later in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is overly detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The contents are up-to-date. The last edit of the article was made pretty recently on November of 2019. However, I think there are more up-to-date content relating to this topic that can be added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the article can expand on the section "Areas of research" and "Alternative theories of cancer". Although in these sections, a link is provided for the key word, I think it would be helpful if a brief description of the key word and its relevance to the article was provided, instead of just the word (i.e. Selenium in the Specific Methods section). I think all the content present belongs to the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes, the article balances the pros and cons of alternative cancer treatments very well. It gives reasons why people are skeptical about alternative cancer treatment as well as why alternative cancer treatments may be useful to treating cancer.
 * 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?
 * Yes, all facts in the article is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information/
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?
 * The article is clear and concise to read.
 * 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?
 * I think the article should include extra sections such as "Background Information/History of Alternative Cancer Treatment" and "Concerns of Alternative Cancer Treatment". These topics were mentioned in the Lead but not mentioned elsewhere in the article. The headings for each section does not best reflect the content. For example the heading "Areas of research" can be renamed to be Types of Alternative Cancer Treatment".

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article only includes one image that enhance the understanding of concerns with Alternative Cancer treatment. I think more images can be included in sections such as "Areas of Research" and "Examples of complementary therapy"
 * An image of an outline of a person is included. I don't think this image enhances the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image "Beware the cancer quack" is well-captioned. However the outline of the person has no caption. It is confusing why that image is in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations are respectful and mostly positive. Some concerns that people had were misuse of terms used by non-experts in this field. Behind-the-scenes, some audiences want more information about certain categories and fact mentioned in the article. Another user also mentioned that this page does not distinguish two aspects of cancer treatments which are treatments that is intended to have cancer cell killing effects and treatments intended to decrease symptoms and the occurrence of cancer.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-class, Mid-importance; it is not part of any WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * People in the talk page seem to be more knowledgable or very passionate about this topic. Most comments are loaded with suggestions and improvements. People's tone in the talk page are respectful but also direct. In class we contribute to the discussion even the we may not be experts in the topic. We discuss respectfully, but I feel like we are less blunt and direct to call out the mistakes of our peers. Some discussions on the talk page do not relate to the topic. For example in "The biggest problem with Wikipedia", the user talks about his/her problem with Wikipedia rather than the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is just rated as C-class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The language used in the article is easy to understand. Each sentence in the article is well cited and supported with sources. The article does not show biases: it expresses both the acceptance and concerns of alternative cancer treatments. The article also includes a wide range of information, about the topic such as types of alternative treatments, people who chose alternative treatments, its prevalence, and its relation with complementary therapy.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by including more examples of alternative cancer treatments, especially in the section "Specific methods". I think the history of alternative cancer treatments should be included. I also think that the headings for each section does not best represent the content of the section and that it should be changed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is underdeveloped: more examples of alternative cancer research can be added in the "Areas of research" section. Some sections such as "Specific methods" and "Pain relief" can be combined with examples of complementary therapy. The article can be further developed by adding more recent data and research on alternative cancer treatments and some graphics.

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: Talk:Alternative cancer treatments (at the bottom of the page)