User:Reneeliiu/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering
 * This topic is particularly interesting to me because my major is biomedical engineering. I'm curious to see how it became the #1 program in the country and evaluate what Wikipedia has to say about it.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence doesn't really describe the program but instead gives a fact that biomedical engineering is both offered at the graduate and undergraduate level. This is somewhat important, as it helps readers understand that it isn't just offered to PhD or Master's, but at the same time, this fact doesn't offer much insight into what biomedical engineering at Johns Hopkins really is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not exactly, but it gives a decent overview of the focus areas found within biomedical engineering at Hopkins. It does not reference "History", "Rankings", or "Notable Faculty" at all.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the article never elaborates on the focus areas mentioned in the Lead section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is short but not necessarily concise. The fact that biomedical engineering is offered at both an undergraduate and graduate program is repeated three times in the lead, which is unnecessary. Stating it once should suffice in my opinion.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. Everything from the history of how the program was founded, to the rankings and faculty all pertain to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The rankings need to be updated, as they are from 2 years ago. Furthermore, the most recent source is from 2018, which also could be improved upon.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There should be more content about the focus areas, and what biomedical engineering at Hopkins is like as a whole. Some ideas are sections about the curriculum, the several focus areas, the design teams and other affiliations with the BME department, such as TTEC and CBID.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * It is generally neutral and impartial, as it doesn't noticeably take a certain stand on the topic. Although written heavily fact-based, the choice of facts from sources like published research papers don't seem to point in the direction of a biased opinion. However, I would like to note that it doesn't state any negative criticisms about the program, however I'm not really sure if there really are any public criticisms about it. The article does state that BME is #1 ranked, but that doesn't change the neutrality of the article because it is an important fact to note about the program.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I wouldn't say so. The word choice in no way exclaims "Hopkins BME is the best in the world!!", as there aren't any strong emotionally-charged words used. Also, as many of the sources are peer-reviewed scientific journals, those usually don't offer much bias. Everytime they make a claim, like saying that Hopkins BME gave rise to some of the earliest works in computational neuroscience, they give proof, to back it up. In the article, it literally says "exemplified by...", and then they give examples of what Hopkins researched.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There aren't really viewpoints you can offer on an article about a program except for whether it's good or not. This article generally talks about BME in a positive light and doesn't say anything negative about it, so that aspect could be considered underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Like previously mentioned, it may accidentally persuade the reader in only seeing the good of Hopkins BME, but not intentionally. I don't believe there are many published criticisms of the program.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There doesn't seem to be a glaring problem with citing sources. Whenever there is a fact stated, there is a citation right after that leads to a reliable source. By reliable, I mean either a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a well known journal, or from a widely accepted news source such as US News.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * For what's written, the sources are pretty encompassing of the literature on the topic, but with more sections added, there will also be more sources needed to reflect all the information. Since this is a scientific topic, there should be maybe more references to scientific papers or journals. Also, to avoid being biased, perhaps the author should try to use less sources from Johns Hopkins and The Hub, as those are sources that are directly linked to the institution and may have a positively skewed view of things.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it's actually sectioned off very well and all the information is relevant to each section. It's easy to read and has clear language. The table could have been placed in a better place to make it more visually appealing.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, however there should be some more sections like "Focus Areas", "Curriculum" and "Affiliations". In the "Focus Areas" section, the author can elaborate on the focus areas stated in the Lead. In the "Affiliations" section, I can talk about TTEC and CBID and other connections we have with other institutions. Then for "Curriculum", I can talk about the old curriculum and the new 2.0 curriculum, as well as the Design Teams that are quite unique to Hopkins BME and is a big part of what sets us apart from others.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there should be a picture of Clark Hall, the design studios, some of the labs, and maybe even some products that have come out of Hopkins BME. I could take these pictures myself, or email whoever owns the pictures on the Hopkins BME website.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one picture of a logo has no caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not really. I think that image should be in the "Lead" section.

Checking the talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Yes, it is a part of WikiProject Universities, which tries to improve coverage of universities and their programs on Wikipedia.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is no discussion occurring.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The History Section is quite informative and the whole article is written in a non-biased tone, which is good.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It just needs to grow overall. It should be expanded into more sections and have more information added. I listed some ideas in the "Content Evaluation" section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is underdeveloped, but the parts that are written are done fairly well.