User:Sebawmm24/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: John Shaw Billings
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I've chosen this article due to its relevance and important nature to the founding of the Johns Hopkins Hospital/School of Medicine.

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 introduces the article's topic well and gives a brief description of the article's major sections. However, the detail about being a hygiene faculty member at UPenn is never mentioned after the introduction. Additionally, the lead seems to be a bit overstuffed with information that could've been distributed to the later sections.

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
All of the content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. Some content doesn't belong, but in the sense that it should be put under different sections of the article.

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 seems to have some bias towards John Shaw Billings. The bias stems from a particular line in the article implying that he attained a certain level of popularity and a place in history. Given that most of the population don't know who he is, that opinion seems a bit skewed in his favor. I wouldn't necessarily say the article attempts to persuade the reader into taking a certain stance, but rather that the language is mildly questionable.

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
Most of the facts seem to be backed up by reliable sources. Additionally, most of the sources seem to reflect the available information on Billings, though not all of them are current or relevant (the source leading to the American Antiquarian Society in particular). The links all seem to work properly.

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 clear and easy to read. However, there are some grammatical errors sprinkled throughout the article, mostly taking the form of double-negatives. Additionally, the article is mostly well-organized, save for some facts that should be re-organized into different sections of the article (for example, an innovation by Billings is listed in the "Late Career" section rather than the "Notable Achievements" section of the article).

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 are well-captioned, are laid out in a visually appealing manner, and all follow Wikipedia's copyright rules. However, they don't necessarily serve the purpose of "enhancing understanding" so much as they do visualize minute details (for example, the Surgeon General's office or a painting of Billings that shouldn't necessarily have been placed there).

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
The conversations in the talk page are mostly discrepancies in the facts presented. The article is rated C-class, low importance in every WikiProject it's a part of. It's a part of: WikiProject Biography, Military, Science and Academia, Indiana, American Civil War, Military history, WikiProject Libraries, and a few others. The discussion present in the talk page doesn't seem to differ from what we've discussed in class.

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 feel that the overall status is a bit lacking. The article's strengths lie in its clear writing, and (mostly) well-done organization. The article can definitely be improved by re-organizing some of the smaller facts into where they seem to belong and fact-checking via the sources. However, the article doesn't seem to be fully complete, especially with regards to the "Affiliation with JHU," "Notable achievements," and "Early life."

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: