User:Regal Kegle/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: (Atomoxetine)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I wanted to include a process that was part of ADHD but not the illness itself.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is very clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It has contents but it is not the narrative.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very succinct.

Lead evaluation
It is very informative but the information about cost production is not relevant until later on. The chemical process of the drug is very good.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? It is extremely relevenant, with side effects being the major concern.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Some content is from early 2000's and one is from 1985, which is too old for prescription medicine.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? None, that I am aware of. I am not a specialist in pharmacy.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The history is quite bare and it does favor a US market run drug.

Content evaluation
That content that is included is quite interesting but it is lacking in full depth. The most interesting one is the adverse effects but I would like to see more percentages if possible. As well as more citation for them.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, pharmacology does not need to go where it is.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Pharamacology is over, side effects could be better structured.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it's tries to lay out the raw info.

Tone and balance evaluation
Probably has an ethnocentric bias that I am unaware of, but another from Europe or Asia would be able to tell.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some may have some bias from the drug company.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The research article sources are the best and more should be used. They could also include more news outlets rather than a few stories.
 * Are the sources current? Most the sources are post 2013.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they are. I would not have included WebMD though.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not all work.

Sources and references evaluation
Could be better

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is not consistent in it's writing. It is very simple in the first half and much more complex.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few I fixed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, But chemistry could better organized.

Organization evaluation
Some areas are full of information and research is bare which should have much more within it.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Very neutral.
 * Are images well-captioned? Nothing special about them.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not well after intro.

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? B
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Mediocre
 * What are the article's strengths? The clarity in the beginning.
 * How can the article be improved? Focus more on research on
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped

Overall evaluation
It's okay, could be better.

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:Atomoxetine