User:Mhuffman613/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: Pinch point hazard
 * Each section contains a bulleted list of examples and is marked that it needs expansion. There is no supporting info for each section.

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
By the guiding questions above, the lead is very simplistic. It consists of two sentences, the first explaining a pinch point and the second explaining that the hazard is common. There is no description of the article's content, which consists of three bulleted lists that support the lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * ? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation
The article's only source was written in February 2018 and the article's author retrieved the source in August 2020, therefore it is believed to be up to date. The articles consists of three bulleted lists. There is a large gap in content, hence the needs expansion notes on each section.

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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The lead and each bullet point is neutral. The article appears free of bias, misrepresentation, and persuasion.

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
Most of the examples listed in the article are linked to the article's only reference. There is certainly more than one source of information on pinch points, meaning the article does not completely reflect available knowledge. The source publisher, Industrial Safety and Hygiene News, did not credit the author(s) on the source page, therefore no information on the diversity of authors could be found. The Work Procedures and Operating Manuals links do 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? None found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The entire article successfully conveys the information provided, however there is much that could be added and refined. There were no grammatical or spelling errors found. Organization is difficult to evaluate given the nature of the content. The content is organized into examples, common causes of injuries, and control methods.

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
No images were included in the article.

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 were no discussions in the talk page. The single source implies that only one author has worked on this article. This Stub-Class article is part of the Occupational Safety and Health and Underwater diving WikiProjects. This article offers very basic information on the nature of pinch point hazards as opposed to the discussion of the topic in classes, which included regulatory information, preventative measures, and case studies.

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 incomplete it provides a decent starting point to build upon, which can be done by adding additional paragraphs leading up to each bulleted list and perhaps adding new sections as needed. Overall, this article is underdeveloped.

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: