User:MKichar1/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: William Osler
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article is describes one of the four founding doctors of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Osler has made numerous contributions to the vision and creation of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Hospital

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 of this article provides an overview of William Osler's life and notable achievements. The facts mentioned in the lead are also relevant to the following sections in the article. In five sentences, a concise introduction to the topics later discussed is given, and is not overly detailed with facts that belong in the other sections of the article. This would provide the reader with the information they could use to ensure this is the correct "William Osler" article or to get pertinent facts about this individual at a quick glance.

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?

Content evaluation
The information included within this article is all pertinent to the life of Osler or his achievements. There are some facts stated within the article that require a citation to be added, as they could be considered possible bias from an editor. The content is up to date on this historical figure, therefore most of the recent content is based on Osler being recognized in modern society for his historical contributions. The "Controversy" section could use formatting or content modifications, as it seems to be a longer paragraph than the others included within the article.

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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The "Controversy" section of the article seems to only consider a critical perspective of Osler's speech. The other sections of the article are less controversial, and therefore appear to be less biased. The writing in these sections does not adopt a negative or overly positive tone about Osler and his achievements, rather it maintains a neutral fact-based stance. This article has a history of multiple editors, and has moved towards an unbiased tone.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links in the article are working. Many of the sources are to current literature or to historical literature which is still considered accurate. There are some facts, mainly in the "Controversy" section which require citations as the statements made could be considered controversial. There are 61 sources included in this article, which seems to be thorough for the amount of information included within its contents.

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
The only issue with the ease of reading the article is small deviations in the paragraph structure in certain sections. The article has been reviewed by other Wikipedians for grammar and spelling mistakes, and these changes are displayed in the edit history. Each section in the article has its own topic, and is relevant to William Osler.

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
The article has multiple images, each with relevancy to the sections of content. The images visually enhance the information in the article, and provide an aid to the historical facts stated. Some of the images are taken by the author/editors, and these adhere to the copyright regulations. All images are in the right margin of the article, each with a descriptive caption for its corresponding image.

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 are multiple conversations relevant to the contents of the article, and the main topic of the article (William Osler). The article was rated B-Class, and is part of five WikiProjects. Wikipedia has a different viewpoint about this article, as it is less focused on the topic's relation to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

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 is mostly relevant, unbiased information that includes many citations. Overall, the article could still use more information, which is possibly more niche than the topics discussed in the current content. The article has been edited for almost fourteen years, and much of the its current content is satisfactory (in mechanics and pertinence). The article includes many visual aids and provides appropriate lists for Osler's eponyms. Appropriate Wikipedia formatting is used for the contents and overview boxes at the top of the article. Minor revisions of the paragraph structure and addition of more facts to the article could improve it to A-Class.