User:Mya.white/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: Neuroscience of music
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it aligns with the course which I am enrolled in, Music and the Brain.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The article begins by clearly explaining what the article's topic is and what will be discussed. The article breaks down into sections of elements of music, music production, emotion, memory, impairment, and more. It stays on topic very well and does mislead by not getting into all of the topics that will be discussed. I believe the lead could of added more information leading into the key points.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article tends to stay very relevant on topics that relate around music psychology. It uses more frequent information to back up the claims which makes the reader feel like the information is more likely to still be true. I believe all the content mentioned does belong in the article. The article focuses on things that someone who studies music or psychology would know, but also explains in a way which anyone can learn. The article does talk about how the majority of people understand music, and different methods of memory for everyone.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article remains neutral with the statements it makes and for the most part stays fact based. The article remains unbiased and does not state anywhere one way of interpreting music is better than another. I think there are more points made about memory than any other topic, but the article does not state it is the most important thing when thinking when thinking of the neuroscience of music.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * The facts in the article were backed up by reliable, thorough, and current sources. The links I checked all worked. Also I believe there a decent amount of authors, although I am unsure of their diversity.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article was very easy to read and was set up in a way that it flowed through all the topics. I felt like the article had few errors and in the spots it did they would be easy corrections.


 * 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
 * The article used few pictures throughout to try and explain the major points and give examples. Although they did have detailed captions explaining the situation, and I believe it does follow all the copyright rules. The article should of put the images in new places instead of just all in a row on the right side and also added more. I would probably use at least one picture for every topic to give a visual picture for the reader to imagine.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * I believe there will be conversations of how to improve the topic and what the reader go out of reading the article. The article does not differ far from what we have discussed in class, but only talks more on subjects we have not reached yet.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article did a very well job hitting all of the main points in wrapping up the neuroscience of music in general. The article had many strengths including different viewpoints and using many factual sources. I would improve the article by add more visual images. I would find this article well-developed and be okay with using it for information.


 * 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?

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: