User:Nicoletruong/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: Regulatory science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I have always heard about regulatory sciences, but I never knew exactly what it was. After looking over the article, I found that the information that falls under regulatory science overlaps with the content I studied for my pharmacy technician exam. For example, OSHA regulations are highlighted in the pharmacy environment because individuals may come into contact with radioactive chemicals and OSHA regulates how to maneuver those types of situations.

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 first sentence of the lead defines regulatory science and the second sentence gives examples of federal departments that are responsible for enacting regulatory science policies. The lead has a table of contents that appropriately delineates the material that is found in the article; it does not contain any additional information, nor is it lacking information. Overall, the lead is concise and provides enough information for the reader to have a broad idea of what regulatory science encompasses.

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. It includes the history, examples of major areas where regulatory sciences are applied, and related areas of study. The page is up to date; it was last edited on July 6, 2019. The article has gone unedited for about four months, which may be due to an absence of new information to add to the article. There is no missing content, nor is there any content that does not belong. In cases where information is not directly relevant to the article, descriptions are kept short and links are provided to direct the reader to another page where he or she can find more in depth information about said topic.

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, no claims seem heavily biased in any way, and the article does not appear to try to persuade the reader of anything. There are some parts of the article that have less information than others. For example, 'Regulatory economics' has less information than 'Applications of regulatory science'. However, the disparity in information is understandable because applications of regulatory sciences are much more relevant to a regulatory sciences article than regulatory economics is.

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
I do not believe all of the facts in the article are cited. Where they are not cited, a [citation needed] link is present. Some information in the 'History' portion of the article seems to need a citation, but no citation is present. Citations to reliable secondary sources of information sometimes do not follow a sentence where they should be present. Some sources are current and some are not. The most recent source is from 2014 and the earliest source is from 1970. However, I do not view this as a big issue because this page details the definition of regulatory science, not research performed on regulatory science. Therefore, if more recent research has been performed, it may not be relevant to add to this article. The links found in the sources 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?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is concise, well-organized, and contains necessary information, but I do not think it is very easy to read. While not grammatically incorrect, some sentence are worded strangely so that I had to read the sentence a few times to understand it. Additionally, the tone of the article reads more like a story as opposed to professional writing. While still digestible, it may be more effective to write in a more professional tone.

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 presented 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
The conversations in the talk page consist mostly of two users debating whether or not the material one user presented is relevant enough to post on the page. This happened in 2016 and one of the users stopped replying. On the surface, the issues seem trivial, but I understand that community Wikipedia editors want the best, most relevant and necessary information to be on the article and nothing else, so I can see some justification as to why the argument was so heated. The article is part of WikiProjects Law, WikiProjects Medicine, WikiProjects Science, WikiProjects Chemical and Bio Engineering, and WikiProjects Environment/Environmental record. We have not discussed regulatory science in class, but it is related to what we do in class in that it plays a big role in ecology. We are learned about ecology and ecosystems and a lot of the federal departments that focus on regulatory sciences, like the EPA and the US Fish and Wildlife Services, also play a role in regulating human intervention in ecosystems.

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 does not have an explicitly stated status. The article was strong in that it gave a concise yet comprehensive summary of what regulatory science is. It could be improved by changing the writing style to be more professional. I believe the article is well-developed, but it could go into more depth of how federal departments engage in regulatory science. For example, it could give short summaries of how the policies the FDA, EPA, and OSHA enact are related to regulatory science.

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: