User:Pattkait/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: Ketosis
 * I chose to evaluate the ketosis page as I noticed it is often viewed but is rated as a "C" in quality and I noticed significant misinformation and poor citations when first reading it. Especially given the increasing popularity of the ketogenic diet, I think it is important that this information be accurate for patients and clinicians.

Lead

 * Lead evaluation
 * The lead is overly detailed and technical, especially given the target audience for wikipedia. It does not outline the rest of the article and includes citations that were not used anywhere else in the article. I also noticed significant misinformation and inconsistencies in the lead that were not present in the rest of the article.

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
This page has not been significantly edited for over two years and contains several sections of irrelevant information. For example, there is a lengthy section on the Inuit diet that takes up a disproportionate amount of the article and is only tangentially related to the topic. Although this section is written in a readable format, the remainder is overly technical and difficult to follow, especially the "Mechanism" section.

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 overall neutral and acknowledges both sides of any controversial points, even if the citations may not be ideal. There doesn't seem to be a lot of debate on position of the article on the talk page, more discussion of aspects of the subject that people don't understand. It does not read as persuasive although the "low-carbohydrate diet" page that is linked many places has a significant anti-low-carb bias.

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
The sources of this article need to be improved and updated. There are many that give an author and date but no journal or book title. There are also quite a few inappropriate primary sources that are quite outdated. There is a flag on the page that says this article needs more references for verification and relies too heavily on primary sources.

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
Overall the article is poorly written and confusing. There are minimal spelling and grammar errors, it is more the the sentence/paragraph structuring and technicality that makes it difficulty to read. I think the organization is more acceptable but it could use some restructuring of headings. For example, the discussion of the Inuit is housed under "Controversy."

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 is one image of the molecular structure of ketone bodies including a caption which somewhat adds to the enhancement of the article. The photo does adhere to copyright. I think the article could be enhanced by the addition of another photo, possible of ketone test strips.

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
This is rated as a C article and is part of WikiProject Medicine. This has been a relatively dormant page for over two years which I found surprising since it is a low-quality article. The conversations on the talk page largely focus on understanding the physiology of the subject matter. This includes discussion of sections that are inaccurate or confusing, however they had not been deleted or revised despite the consensus that they should be. It seemed like people were afraid to actually do the edits that were discussed which seems counter to our discussions in class.

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
Overall, this is an underdeveloped article with significant potential for improvement. It would benefit greatly from improving the organization and readability of the entire article and reflecting this is in the lead. The citations need to be verified and additional sources should be added. The biggest strength is having a well-balanced tone, however I believe this balance can be maintained while the content and citations are bulked.

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: Talk:Ketosis