User:NinaLopergolo/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
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it is a general overview of neuroscience and touches upon various topic that is related to our course, Neural Circuits and Behavior.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The Lead of the article includes a concise introductory sentence that defines what neuroscience is. This sets up what the entire article will further discuss, which includes the various disciplines that make up the study of neuroscience. The Lead alludes to the major sections that the article goes into further detail about in the following sections. The lead is concise while providing a lot of detail of what is to come in the proceeding paragraphs. Overall, the Lead is good, it introduces the topic, subsections, and is understandable.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes, recent sources
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and even though neuroscience is a broad field with a long history dating back to ancient times it provides a good summary of the history of the field and the components that make up modern neuroscience. The article is a good example of a balance of not too much or too little information. The content is also up to date which adds to the overall quality of the article, references range from 1990-2019 and the page was last edited in August of 2019.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone to the article is neutral. This article simply presents factual information relevant to the study of neuroscience. The article mentions nothing that could be considered an opinion or attempt to persuade the reader. The article is unbiased and objective which contributes to this article's high rating.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? somewhat. (1990-2019)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
Most if not all the facts within the articles are backed by reliable secondary sources. These sources are relevant to the topic and from a wide range of different resources relating to neuroscience, it's history, and the subfields. The sources are relatively recent, as old as 1990 and as recent as 2019. Also, the several links I did check worked and went to the correct references. The sources and references overall within this article were well done.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is well done as well. The language of the article is understandable to most readers, it isn't too scientific that the typical reader wouldn't be able to understand easily. The article isn't too filled with scientific language and most terms specific to neuroscience are linked and defined.The article has a nice flow that follows the history of the field, following the introduction is begins with the history of neuroscience and goes into modern neuroscience and the various components, branches, and important institutions/people that make it up. Additionally, the article seems to have no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Images and media evaluation
The article has just a few images but these benefit the overall quality of the article. The images correspond nicely with the written content and give the reader a visual of what the text is trying to convey, and provides a better understanding. Each image has a caption that concisely and accurately explains the image. Finally, the images adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations, each image has a licensing section that lays out how the image can be used or a proper citation.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? mostly how to make it better, conversations about adding and removing topics
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? B-class; neuroscience, biology, philosophy, science, education
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
This article is part of numerous WikiProjects including neuroscience, biology, philosophy, science, and education projects with various degrees of importance. The talk page is mostly conversations about how to improve the article from B-class status, what topics should be added, and what should be revised. The Wikipedia discussion differs from the way we talk about the topic in class because its mostly concerned with the format of the article and the specific language used. A lot of the conversations within the talk page seem to be superficial unlike the amount of detail we go into in class. With that being said there are some conversation threads that suggest relevant information to be added to the article, in this way a the conversation and exchange of information is similar to our class discussions.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? B-class
 * What are the article's strengths? concise, easy to understand, wide scope of information
 * How can the article be improved? more focus on subfields of neuroscience
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? well-developed

Overall evaluation
The article's status is B-class. It is a very well done article, it is concise, easy to understand, and addresses a wide range of topics and information related to neuroscience; this makes the article well-developed and complete. However, I do think some subfields of neuroscience could be more developed when compared to other topics such as "public education and outreach". Regardless, I think the article successfully addressed a lot of important parts that make-up neuroscience and is important for understanding the field.

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: