User:SadieAbboud/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
 * Helen B. Taussig
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * In high school, I watched the movie, Something the Lord Made, and was inspired by Helen Taussig's role as the only female to help work on this case.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I believe it does cover the main and most important parts of the article effectively.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, I believe it does through the "contents" box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything that was mentioned was discussed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise – however, I believe the last sentence of the lead can be removed because it is not as an important of a detail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * For the most part, yes. However, in the "Taussig's Collaborations" section, Dr. Edward Albert Park was talked about more than I think was relevant to Helen Taussig. It seemed that too much emphasis was put on Dr. Park, taking away from the main subject/purpose of the article.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No – although she is no longer alive, a good addition to this article would be how her work has evolved/shaped today's medicine. Also, added any recent awards if she has received any would be useful.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Again, I think the whole section about Dr. Park wasn't necessary.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, there are no controversial opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I don't think so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The view point of being an underrepresented minority in the medical field at the time could be better represented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I don't think it does.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, there were some places in the article where a citation was needed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, I think so.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, but I don't think many new sources were written because she passed away a while ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, but the only section I would change is the section about her "Honors" – I would make this into some sort of chart so it is easier to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it doesn't.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I would break some sections up further. For example, I think "Career in medicine and retirement" should be broken up into two separate categories.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, the only image include is a headshot.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the one image in the article is well-caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, it is labeled "fair use."
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, I think so.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The only comment in the talk section was the following: "Changed 'suffered deafness' to 'became profoundly deaf' for more politically correct language."
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated a "C" on the WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women's History which means it "is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material."
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article has a section labeled "Further reading" which is not something we discuessed in class previously.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, this article has some important elements but still has a lot of work to be done to it to make it complete.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Her main/most notable contribution (the Blalock-Thomas-Taussig shunt) to medicine was discussed very thoroughly.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think the organization can be improved as far as sectioning. I also think the other projects she worked on that weren't as well developed in the article can be improved.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is on its way to being well-developed but has not yet gotten there. I think some of the smaller sections can be better 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: Talk:Helen B. Taussig