User:MarKelly94/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: Default mode network
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is relevant to what we have been studying in class.

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 does include an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic, but I think it could use some improvement. I noticed the word brain appears in the sentence three times. I think the sentence is trying to explain a lot of things all at once.
 * The lead does include a description of some of the things talked about in the article, but not all. There is no description of the history, modulation, or criticisms.
 * There does not seem to be anything in the lead that is not at least mentioned by other sections.
 * I would say that the lead is overly detailed in some areas, but overly concise in others. It talks a lot about the function, but doesn't mention the historical or other aspects.

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 article's content is very relevant to the topic.

I don't know a whole lot about the topic, but I think it could use some updating. Someone in the talk section said it would be good to update a graph from 2014, and I bet some other things could use updating.

I am wondering if research in regards to depression and the DMN could be included more.

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
It would seem that the article is neutral.

I don't think that this article is bias. Perhaps the "Criticism" section could be longer, but it doesn't seem to bias one ideal more than another. One of the positions in the "Criticism" section is underrepresented, but it is not arguing against the default mode network, it is arguing the usefulness of the information that we know about the default mode network. I don't think the article is attempting to persuade anyone of one or the other.

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

 * It would seem so. There are 57 cited sources in the article, and I have not examined them all, but the ones I have looked at are published in peer reviewed journals.
 * The sources seem to be thorough and they seem to cover quite a few topics related to the DMN.
 * Many of the sources are current. I found a couple that were from this year. I also saw some that were older (from the 1990s), but I think that this is appropriate because these are part of the history of the DMN.
 * The links worked on all but one of the sources that I clicked on. Source 39 did not work.

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
Overall, I think the article could be a little clearer. I can tell that it was written by a number of different writers because of the structure. The opening section does not cover all the sections in this article. I also think that perhaps another section could be written on other aspects of the DMN. The sections are clear, concise, but not so easy to read. this could be because I simply am not very knowledgeable about the subject though. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into sections that represent important aspects of the DMN.

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 images do enhance understanding of the topic, but I think some of them could be explained better. For example, the second image on the page is a diffusion tensor image, but this is not mentioned. Also, as someone mentioned in the talk page a model in the "Anatomy" likely does not mean anything to anyone who does not have a Ph.D. in psychology.

The images are laid out well, they are somewhat informative and very relevant to what is being discussed.

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
The conversations going on about this topic are fairly few. Since the founding of the article, there have only been 5 things mentioned, only one reply to any of them, and one of the conversations was a response to another conversation. The things discussed have been things such as a complaint of a visual representation given (the second one I also mentioned above), a need for updating one graph mentioned, and the need to merge this page with another one, which was denied.

The article is rated as start-class article. It is part of three WikiProjects.

This article dives more in-depth on this particular brain network. In class we discussed several networks that the brain resorts to while doing different tasks, and how self-destructive thoughts come from this specific network. This however was not mentioned in this article. Perhaps this is something that could be added in the future.

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
Overall the article is good, but it could use some updating. The lead paragraph could better cover the content of this article, and some research could be explained in regards to depression and self destructive thoughts.

this article is well developed, but could be cleaned up and perhaps it could even use a little more developing.

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: