User:Mtshiel/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: Autoimmune disease
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article as I have an interest in epidemiology and also want to be a doctor in the future. My focus is mainly on autoimmune diseases due to a large amount of my close friends having one or multiple autoimmune diseases. Being able to evaluate the wikipedia article will also help me learn more about how they occur, the different types, and other general information regarding the broad topic. Later, being able to help evaluate and edit future, specific autoimmune diseases for the wiki project itself.

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 contains a brief and simple definition of what an autoimmune disease is, along with various examples and potential treatments options. Throughout the Lead's explanation of autoimmune diseases, it does incorporate all but the last content section of "Research". The Lead is a bit simple in language and could be a little more detailed in the overall definition of what an autoimmune disease is. The Lead is, overall, very concise and brief. It does a good job at showcasing the individual topics within the article and providing some examples along with it, but it could be a little more explanatory for each major content piece.

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
The bulk of the content within the article is very fleshed out earlier on. Specifically, the topics of "examples", "causes", and "diagnosis" are very detailed and backed by a multitude of sources and links to other wikipedia pages. The content was most recently updated on the 11th of November 2020. Most of the content is relatively recent with most academic sources dating back to 2016 and 2017. In terms of editing, the article is still updated quite frequently for errors and corrections as information has changed from the 2016 and 2017 sources. The content for the more recent additions of "treatments", "epidemiology", and "research" could use more content updates with more detailed information.

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 and balance of the article is purely neutral. The article's tone is very even with no extravagant verbiage and displays no underlying emotional or opinionated influence. Some verbiage used, like "promising", in the treatment section is slightly biased as the writer seems to appear excited and optimistic that this form of treatment will be successful. The only underrepresented viewpoints come from that of the theories, "Altered Glycan Theory" and "Hygiene Hypothesis". Both of these have a brief explanation on them but no solid information regarding their applicability to the wide variety of autoimmune diseases out there.

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
There are currently a total of 51 sources linked to the article. Of the links I checked, all seem to still redirect you to their intended location. The sources themselves come from a wide variety of authors - textbooks, medical journal articles, and government websites. The sources are also from various different time frames. Some sources are from medical journals and textbooks from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and all the way up to present day. Overall, the sources and references are very strong and have a broad scope and viewpoint on the topic.

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 well-written in all its major content sections. The Lead could be a little stronger in setting up for the major content topics to be talked about. It does little to give some detail about some major content points. There wasn't any grammatical or spelling errors that I saw after going through the article a few times. Its overall organization is strong. The article flows well from one topic to the next as the topics following always deal with a facet from the previous 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 only two images within the article. One image is of a "butterfly rash" from systemic lupus erythematosus and the other is of rheumatoid arthritis. The lupus image is very well captioned and explained, but the rheumatoid arthritis photo has only the name of the disease without any description of what is happening in the photo, which is of a deformed hand. The images themselves only offer an idea of the different types of diseases but does little for helping understand the topic itself. The images are in accordance with Wikipedia copyright regulations as they are cited.

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 article is currently a C-rated article and is a high-importance article for the Medicine WikiProject and mid-importance article for the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. There is currently no conversation happening within the "talk" page. The last conversation occurred around November of 2017 with no reply. Most of the old conversation included ways to structure the article and how to flesh out the info in a way that keeps the article general and doesn't encroach onto specific autoimmune diseases and their characteristics.

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 listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology with a C-rating. There are still many improvements that can be made and Wikipedia even asks for us to improve the page if possible in the "talk" page. The article has very strong content sections like the "signs and symptoms", "examples", and "treatment". These are the most fleshed out and informative parts of the article. The article could still use a good amount of fleshing out in the "research" and "diagnosis" sections. The research section can be fact-checked more and given more details on the accuracy and process of the theories. The diagnosis section starts out strong but when it comes to the tests used to determine the diagnosis there is much to be desired in terms of definitions, procedures, and what it's testing for. The article is still underdeveloped and needs a few strong revisions to the later sections.

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: