User:Mr. Bubs/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.


 * Systolic hypertension
 * This article was chosen to evaluate because of the apparent discrepancy between the pathological importance of the topic and the amount of information contained within the article. Briefly,

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 is limited to only two sentences. The leading sentence which purportedly defines systolic hypertension lacks a citation. There does not appear to be an adequate description of the topic. Based on my limited knowledge of the topic, there seems to be information missing from the topic definition.

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 content is sparse. The authors(s) seem hesitant to fully address the entirety of the topic for fear, I believe, of encroaching upon the separate topic of hypertension thereby confusing the two. The page lacks some possible important and pertinent sections like Signs/Symptoms, Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Management, Epidemiology and some potential others.

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 tone of the article is difficult to ascertain because of its brevity and sparseness. However, it is generally neutral and unbiased.

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 source links work, however some link only to the abstracts of the research cited rather than the full source publication. In their entirety, the citations do not adequately represent the research on this topic. The sources are outdated with only one citation published within the last 5 years (2016). Some facts within the article are not backed up with source references.

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?

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 are no images or media to support the information provided 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 have been no behind the scenes conversations related tooth's topic or this page. The article has not been updated since 2017 and has been given a 'C-Class' rating from WikiProject 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 overall unimpressive and falls short of adequately addressing the important topics of the subject discussed.

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: