User:Mizrebel83/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: Cronkhite–Canada syndrome
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I once was involved with patient care who was diagnosed with this condition. The scientific literature is sparse, and we had even fewer materials to provide to the patient to help them understand their condition.

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's introductory sentence describes the article's topic followed by a few sentence that provide a broad overview. It has a legend that serves as a brief description of the article's major section. Overall, the lead is concise, though perhaps could be more informative.

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 relevant to the topic, though lacking depth. In addition, I thought that a central feature of CCS was that it spared the esophagus (not that polyps are infrequently observed there, as stated in the article). There remains a lot unknown about this condition, but there are aspects that are better understood and this information could be included. For example, content about other adjunct therapies/combination therapies could be considered for integration in this entry.

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
The article is neutral. It points to one hypothesis of cause and effect relationship and also gives balanced perspective to studies that might refute that point.

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 is described as a "rare" condition but without the context of incidence/prevalence in the population. It is noted the year that it was characterized (1955) but doesn't attribute that medical finding to the people responsible for diagnosing/characterizing/describing it (eponymous attribution). Many statements have a citation, though some do not (and one explicitly states "citation needed"). The sources used include both background and foreground types. I know of additional literature that could be used to flush out this topic more. The links work and the references used are largely open-access which improves opportunities for readership.

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 article is simplistic, but fairly easy to read. In comparing this article's layout to the Wikipedia page layout of a more well-known polyposis syndrome, Peutz-Jegher syndrome, the section heading "Presentation" could alternatively be labeled "Signs and symptoms." Similarly, "Cause" might be changed to "Pathophysiology" for better categorization. Also, "Treatment" is not an appropriate heading since interventions focus on "Management" at best, with the recognition that optimal therapy is unknown. Either within that or as a separate entity, "Prognosis" (+/- "Monitoring") should be detailed.

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
There is a basic image of the digestive tract without images that point to abnormalities (no gross anatomical images/illustrations of polyps or microscopic pathological staining of tissue). The image is not attributed to anyone, and does not enhance understanding of the topic.

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
Despite there being some edit/revision activity in January 2020, there are not any conversations on how to represent this topic on the Talk page. This is a WikiProject Medicine article, currently rated Start-Class on the project's quality scale with Low-importance. It is supported by the following: the Dermatology task force, the Hematology-oncology task force, and the Pathology task force. A request for a photograph has been made to improve its quality.

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 overall status of the article is poor to fair. It provides a basic understanding without a lot of falsehoods, though it is possible an error was made (See Talk page activity). It could be improved with more development of text and supporting images.

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:Cronkhite–Canada syndrome