User:Rbachan1/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: (link) Neurosurgery
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I am interested in neuroscience, and I want to be a neurosurgeon. Additionally, neurosurgery was born at Johns Hopkins.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 does include a sentence that describes the topic. There isn't a description of the sections, but there is a table of contents listing them. The information in the lead is present in the article. The Lead is very short, if anything it could use some more information.

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
The content is relevant to the topic, and it is up to date. However, the grammar in some areas is poor. There is some content about the history of neurosurgery that could probably be removed, such as the very brief section about the "ancient" use of neurosurgery.

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 neutral, there doesn't seem to be any heavy biases toward a particular position.

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 are thorough, although not all of them are current (there are some from over 10 years ago). The links work.

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
The article is well-organized, and the sections make sense and are well laid out. However, there are a few simple grammatical mistakes.

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
The article does have images, but not all of them have captions. It is hard to tell if the pictures directly relates to the text next to them. Some of the images are so small that they are difficult to see.

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
On the talk page, people are talking about changing some sections due to them being biased. Also, some people are looking to change the captions of images that don't say what's in the picture. The article has a "Start" rating, which means it needs some work. It is a part of WikiProject Epilepsy.

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, the article is not where it should be and could use work. Its strengths are that it is well organized, and has decent surface level information. It could be further improved in areas like history, and it should be proofread for spelling and grammar errors. I would say this article is a little 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: