User:Sammyturch/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: Skull
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I am interested in the structural anatomy of the human body and the total capacities/processes the skull is able to support.

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 is concise and clear, but could use more detailed descriptions when introducing new biological terms. The lead could better outline the article's comparison between animal and human skulls. The sequencing of the Table of Contents could be re-ordered in a way that supports a more incremental flow of information for readers new to the content.

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 article's content is highly relevant to the topic. The content is up to date, but could introduce new sections that relate to the structural evolution of the human skull.

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
The article is written in a highly neutral tone. Biased claims and positions are not present because the content provides factual scientific information and is not a subjective topic. The viewpoints regarding Transgender procedures could be expanded on.

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
Terminologies are effectively linked to other Wiki pages for further explanations. Sources are highly intricate and contain theoretical and analytical references to medicine, archaeology, zoology, biology, etc. Sources are modern and up to date and should continue to expand on 3D modeling experts, and the development of aesthetic surgical procedures.

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
The article is concise, clear and easy to read, but could flow a little more efficiently into the scientific terms used. There were no spelling errors captured, but grammatical terms such as "bony" could be rewritten with a more scientific term.

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
Images are thorough and clear. Diagrams become exceptionally useful when referring to the scientific terminologies described. Perhaps architectural drawing techniques of the human/animal skull (plans, sections, exploded axos, etc.) could be implemented to better understand its complete interior and exterior construction.

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
Links and websites not working, and clarification on the term "cranium" have been discussed in the Talk section of this article. The article has been rated as a C-class page and has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. The article is also of interest in the following WikiProjects: Anatomy, Animal Anatomy, and Death.

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
The article is a great source for starting to understand the anatomy of the human skull. The sources provided are wonderful stepping stones into further details on the topic. The article's contents should be reordered in a more sequential flow to help non-anatomy experts understand the topic in a strategic manner. Overall the article is well-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:Skull