User:Sadiebrown17/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.


 * Optic disc
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it's a part of the neuroanatomy that we're learning about. It's also been taught about and referenced in my Psychology class.

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 an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describes the optic nerve. There was not a brief description of the major sections of the article included in the lead. The information in the lead was concise and not overly detailed and they did not present any information in the lead that was not included in the article.

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 of the article is very relevant to the topic and the content does seem to be up-to-date and current. There doesn't seem to be any content missing or any information that doesn't belong. I do wish that there was more information on the structure and function of the optic disc itself since there is hardly any information on that and significantly more information on the imaging of the optic disc.

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
I believe that the article is very neutral and it doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position or away from any other position. It does seem like the person who wrote the article is probably in the field of ophthalmology just because there's a lot of clinical information and not a whole lot of basic information. There's not any claims that are heavily biased though and other than maybe the ophthalmology information, I don't think there's any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

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
There are quite a few statements in the article that are not cited or they've written in that a citation is needed. Quite a bit of the information in the imaging section is not backed up by anything. The sources that are given do reflect a bit of the literature available on the topic, however I think there could be much more there. All the references given are fairly current and up-to-date. The links that I did check were working, however, half of the references listed were not actually given a hyperlink, which is slightly concerning.

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
I think for the most part, the article is well-written. There are a few parts that I thought the wording was a little confusing but the information given seemed to be clear and concise. I didn't catch any grammatical or spelling errors, which was a plus. I think that the way the article is organized makes a lot of sense and each section reflects a major talking point of the topic.

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 images that are included in this article do enhance the understanding of the optic nerve and they all seem to be well-captioned. The images that are all the way at the bottom of the article could have more detailed captions, or if not put in more detail could include hyperlinks to better enhance understanding. I wish they would've laid out the pictures in a different way because most of them are just placed at the end of the article. I think they could've placed more of them throughout the article to break up the text.

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
There really is no real conversation going on in the talk page, there's one question repeated four different times which I found very interesting. The article is rated as part of the C-class and is part of two different WikiProjects. It's part of both the Anatomy and Neuroscience WikiProjects. We haven't talked about this topic in class yet, but there really isn't any discussion on the topic anyway. The talk page is very disappointing and doesn't provide any insight into the topic at all.

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
I think the article is a very good start but still needs pretty significant work. Most of the article is referring to the imaging, which doesn't provide very much education on the optic disc itself. One strength that the article has is that it does provide more information than just the basics. It's very interesting to read about the imaging and clinical significance of the optic disc. Another strength is that it's not poorly written. There are a couple spots where the wording is unclear but for the most part, I think the article makes sense. The article could be improved by adding more basic information to enhance the general understanding of the optic disc. I do think that the article is under-developed and needs substantial work for it to be improved.

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: