User:Np53194/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: Talk:HIV/AIDS in the United States
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because I helped write part of a research paper for Dr. Clark

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? No, but it does have a contents box that explains what is going to be talked about throughout the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? NO
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is pretty concise, but fails to acknowledge the mortality and morbidity section of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is still some content that needs to be cited for. There is also very short section on mortality and morbidity that should be expanded upon.

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 over-represented, or underrepresented? The incidence rate for the United States is not well represented. This section should be expanded upon with more details about the incidence, morbidity, and mortality.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. This article seems to be tailored in a neutral manor

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there are some sections that still need to be cited correctly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article starts out concise and clear, but then tends to get lengthy on the president's action part.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, although there could be more pictures added.
 * 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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Most of the conversations on the talk page are looking at where to add citations and if not those statements should be eliminated.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated at top importance in a couple categories.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article does tailor its view to only look at the United States and the way high level officials have influenced this topic. There could be high level medical proponents that should be cited in this page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is useful, but needs some issues fixed
 * What are the article's strengths? This article does go pretty in depth about specific attributions to the distribution of the disease
 * How can the article be improved? Many citations are needed for claims that are made.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is mildly underdeveloped.

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: