User:Mansi829/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) Fall Prevention
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

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
This article does have a introductory sentence, but it is not concise enough. It basically summarizes the article's main topic in a few words. But it can be done in a much detail way. Instead of just saying what is the reason of Fall Prevention. The Lead however just include brief descriptions of the article's major sections. The article is broke into several different sections that describes each illness. There are some sections that the Lead mentions, but then never mentions in the rest of the article, I suggest having topics flow through the article, instead of just mentioning it in one part and then never again. I wouldn't say it's overly detailed it's pretty concise and straightforward. Pretty easily understandable as well.

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
This article's content is relevant to the topic. It has many sections that are divided into subsections that talks about the different falls of older people. It is pretty up-to-date. There are a lot of environmental modifications that seem pretty modern. I don't really spot any content that is missing or out of place. It is pretty well said in order. This article particularly deals with one group of population which is the elderly people. There are no other population groups that it deals with.

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
This article in my opinion is pretty neutral. It isn't heavily biased towards a particular position. The main idea of this article is how to prevent falls in older people, but most parts of this article talks about what causes the fall in older people. There aren't any viewpoints that overrepresented or underrepresented, instead there are viewpoints that are supportive of one side than the other. Which in this article, it is too hard to favor a position since it's not a debate, it's straightforward explaining what can prevent falls in the elderly, and to decrease the chance of making it happen. People can for sure argue about how the different methods explained can decrease the chances of falls.

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
Yes, a lot of this information is backed up by a reliable source. There a lot of main illnesses that are described in this article. but all of them have a secondary source attached. And those sources are reliable and they do reflect the literature of the topic. Some of the sources are not current they are pretty old, but they do work and it takes me to the right page. These sources are written by a variety of different authors.

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
This article is fairly well organized, it is clear and concise. Pretty straightforward and easy to understand and follow along. I hardly spotted any grammar or spelling errors. Majority of the article didn't have any errors. The article is very organized. Not only is it broken into sections, but it is is broken into subsections as well. Which made it easier to point out major points of each topic.

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
This article did not have that many pictures, but it did have some that were of the environmental modifications. Which made easier to see what modification they were exactly talking about. And they were well-captioned as well. These images to adhere to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and they are visually appealing 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?
 * 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 aren't really any behind the scene conversations that are going on. The article is rated pretty highly and it is part of Wikiprojects as well. I personally didn't see any difference of topics, since all the topics that we discussed in class were similarly the same but just explained in a different way in the article. So I didn't see a major difference in topics.

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
I overall really enjoyed reading this article. There was a lot information that was presented or that could've been added into the article. But overall, I really liked the article in general. The article is very well developed, with a lot of good information presented. It was pretty straightforward and easy to understand. Nothing really seems hard to understand or comprehend. It was a fairly easy read.

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: ~ Mansi Patel