User:Rev60/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: Human nutrition
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I tend to neglect my nutrition at times since that I live on my own, so I thought that reading a bit more about it would motivate me to take my health more seriously.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that the article is overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? For the most part yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Not really, some sources have not been updated or revised since they were published.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content is missing. I think that some information given in the article are somewhat irrelevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None that I have read.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article just plainly states facts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? A couple of them are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic. A couple do, but for some I was unable to check.
 * Are the sources current? Some of them are current, others aren't. The oldest source I found is dated in 2000.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not all of them work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think it is easy to read..
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I have picked up on.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has a few images, they could have added more.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, they are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I do not see any conversations on how to represent this topic. Human nutrition
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It has been rated a C-class and yes it is part of a WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I am not really sure.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article was placed as Vital 5 article meaning that is it not very important.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has substantial information and a few reliable sources.
 * How can the article be improved? Some information should be removed since that some of it is irrelevant to the actual topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is not complete and needs more revision and edition.

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: