User:Radtkejk/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.


 * Otitis: (Otitis)
 * This article is a stub article that needs people to expand on its topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes an introductory sentence that describes the topic well. There are no major sections for this article because this is a stub. There has not been much work to expand from the original start of the article. The Lead only gives an explanation of the different types of otitis. The Lead does not have enough information to have a broad, yet concise understanding of the topic.


 * 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 lead introductory sentence is good, yet it needs to have citations. The body of the Lead needs to be fleshed out and possibly rearranged to better suit the article's topic. As of now, the Lead needs to contain more citations to back up the claims that have been stated.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic, yet there is not much information about the topic. This article was started in 2014 and does not have any outside sources; it only cites other Wikipedia pages. This article does not have up-to-date content. All of the content present should be included, although it may need to be moved around once the article is fleshed out. There is a lot of content missing since this article only tells us what it is the major types. There is a lot of information that can be


 * 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
What is included in the content is a great overview about the topic. I know that there needs to be cited sources for the content that is present at this moment. There needs to be more content to really have a good understanding of what this is and other supporting information and content.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article provides neutral information on the topic. This article does not appear to have any bias toward a particular position over another. There are viewpoints that are underrepresented because none of the content goes into enough detain about the topic. There is no persuasion present in this article, it is simply too short for that.


 * 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
This article does a good job at being neutral and lacking any persuasive information. Although this is easy for a stub article to achieve, there is a lack of balance nnad information. Without much information, there cannot be much overall balance. Once information is added, there needs to be a balance of what is represented so nothing is overrepresented.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

None of the facts or information in this article are back by sources in general, especially reliable secondary sources of information. This would mean that there are no current sources and no thorough sources. There are Wikipedia links that take you to Wikipedia pages and they do seem to work and go to the right pages. Although I am not an expert in this topic, I would have to do a little research to know if they are going to the correct page related to this topic.


 * 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
There needs to be more sources and references throughout this article. This would help create the validity and reliability that is missing. The sources that need to be put into the article will have to be current, so the reader has the best information at their disposal. The Wikipedia references have enhanced what information is present, so this should continue throughout the who article when it is edited.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well-written for what is available. It is clear and easy to read. I would not consider it concise because there really is not enough information present. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors while I read it. This is not well-organized because it needs to have sections added and information added. The information may need to be move around once there is more information.


 * 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 needs more information; when there is more information, it can be broken into different sections which will help with the article's organization. On the positive side, there was not many, if any, grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

This article includes one image. The image is of the inner ear which does relate to the topic. The only problem with the image is that it is with the lead, and the lead talks about more than just the inner ear. The image does not have a good caption that helps people understand why it is included with this article. This image does not adhere to the copyright regulations. It gives no indication on where the picture came from. This image just sends you to another Wikipedia page that does not have the same picture or a very in-depth explanation of it.


 * 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
The image provided in this article does not directly tie to lead of the article, which is where it is positioned. The image does not adhere to the copyright regulations which is a major problem in this case. The image needs a caption that address what it is about and how it relates to the article. Images also neeed to be placed where they are most relevant, not just anywhere.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

On this article's talk page, there is no conversations that are going on. After the original article was placed on Wikipedia, nothing has been done to it. This also shows where there has not been any sources or even an interest of people to edit or help this article. This article is rated as a stub article with mid-importance. This shows that this is an article that should be edited. Wikipedia gives these articles importance ratings to help people understand what articles need to be edited and fixed before others.


 * 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
I understand that this is a stub article because there is not much to it, so I expected little on the talk page and I was right. There was nothing on the talk page which makes almost complete sense. I think that even though this is a mid-important article, there is a lot that can be done to help it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is definitely a stub article that needs many people to work to improve it. If improvement are not made, people will not be able to get a brief overview of this topic. The article does a good job are referencing other Wikipedia articles, so people can look into those topics if needed. The article needs to be improved in many ways. This article needs to be fleshed out, broken down into different sections, and sources are desperately needed. This article in no where near completeness. It is poorly developed and in need of much improvement.


 * 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
This article needs to be improved in every category. This is a lot of work that needs to be shared by a lot of people.

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: