User:Seandemps/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: Food choice of older adults
 * I chose this article in particular due to its fascinating information about how our tastes, preferences, and physical and mental health change as we grow older.

Lead evaluation
The Lead clearly describes the article's main idea in the introductory sentence while mentioning each of its major sections. However, the Lead does not provide brief descriptions of the article's major sections. Although the article does not provide brief descriptions in the Lead, it ends up outlining each topic in its own section. Overall, the Lead lacks descriptions of each of its sections. Instead, it includes four short introductory sentences that only mention each topic that will be covered.

Content evaluation
The article's content is consistent and sticks to its topics mentioned in the Lead, providing a decent amount of information for each section. The content is also relatively up-to-date. Most of its references are from the 2010s with the most recent in 2016. All the content is relevant to the initial topics that are mentioned in the lead. The main points of sources are conveyed, however, it can provide more information than it currently has.

Tone and Balance

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is mostly straightforward and simply provides different statistics, measures, and information in general that describe what factors change our food diets and preferences. Therefore, this article is neutral and does not contain any claims that heavily support a particular side due to the fact that there is no argument.

Sources and References

 * Sources and references evaluation

Each fact or point that is made is referenced to a reliable secondary source that is up-to-date. The sources all relate to change in taste as people grow older and provide the different aspects and factors that cause this. Most of the sources are current, typically ranging in the 2000s and 2010s. However, there are two or three articles in the 1990s. The secondary sources' links work as well.

Organization

 * Organization evaluation

The article needs improvement in the amount of information it gives to the reader. There are some loose ends in the conclusions provided at the end of a couple of sections. One major grammatical error is in the first section, where a quote is four to five sentences long with no detailed explanation after it. In addition, there are many missing commas and a couple of verb mistakes. It is a relatively well-organized article, but there can be more information provided from each source. As compared to what is conveyed in the article, it is relatively general information rather than diving deeper into the subjects. Overall, each major section conveys the main ideas of the topics presented in the introduction.

Images and Media

 * Images and media evaluation

The article lacks any sensible images that would enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. In addition, the captions do not provide any information other than a simple title. Both images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are not laid out in a visually appealing way, as they seem as if they were crammed onto the sides of the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Talk page evaluation

A couple of users suggested that the article needed better flow. However, while they did explain that it needed better wording and grammar, they also believed that it is well-organized and has a solid foundation of general information. Their suggestions included providing further detailed information from several of the secondary sources. This topic discusses a certain aspect of the eating culture, as it picks apart a clear subculture and their view of food.

Overall impressions

 * Overall evaluation

The article is mainly a well-organized, solid foundation for main ideas of the change in food preferences of older people. Its strengths include organization of topics and sources, however it can be improved by further explaining some of the main points that are made in the article. Also, another minor improvement can be the images that are provided to further enhance the reader's attention to the topic. Overall, I believe the article is in between the category "underdeveloped" and "well-developed." The article is just below well-developed. A more thorough word flow along with more detailed information can develop this article substantially.

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: