User:Rana Hazimeh/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: Autism and memory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: The title of the article seems appealing for it is a topic that I don't know much about, yet I would like to learn more about it. Also, the chosen article appears to have multiple issues that need to be fixed, which makes it more worthy of evaluation.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead briefly introduces autism and its relation to memory. However, it does not give a clear view on the topic nor does it clearly shed the light on the ideas that are going to be discussed later in the article. On the other hand, the lead does not include any irrelevant or extra information that are not present in the article. It is also fairly concise and not overly detailed.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content of the article is relevant to the topic and provides some details and examples regarding different types of memory. The article was last edited on August 2019, so I assume it is up-to-date. However, the content introduces some studies done in 2012, but nothing later, so that doesn't really aid in supporting my assumption. There doesn't seem to be any content that does not belong to the article. However, more explanations and clarifications are needed in certain parts of the article, thus it is missing some information about autism and memory strengths.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and not noticeably biased towards a particular position. It provides scientific information along with examples and studies to support its claims, with no attempt to persuade the reader with any of its them.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Almost all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information that includes several details regarding the discussed topic. However, although the links work, the sources don't seem to be current, since the latest source was published in 2012 (7 years ago), which makes the information in the article sceptical.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is clear and easy to read for it is short yet provides useful information regarding the topic. However, the language of the article can be improved greatly in a way that makes it more interactive and clear to the reader. The article is well organized to a certain extent. I still think it could be improved too.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not include any images, which makes it less appealing and might decrease the reader's ability to fully understand some points discussed in the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There doesn't seem to be any conversations on the talk page of this article, it just says that it has been moved to mainspace for it was rejected by an editor.

The article is part of some WikiProjects (Medicine - Neuroscience - Psychology - Disability).

Wikipedia discusses topics in a very objective manner without including the point of view of the writer. However, in class, each student shares his/her own ideas and opinions and argues to try to convince others with his/her thoughts.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is not very enjoyable to read for it gives the reader the feel that there are some missing information and that there is more behind the topic to be discussed than what was mentioned in the article. The article can be greatly improved by fixing the language, adding more clarifications and explanations, and most importantly checking the validity of the information giving that the sources are not current.


 * 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?

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: