User:Seleneallenhodges/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Steroid Diabetes
 * Lead Section:
 * Honestly, I was very disappointed while reading this article. After reading the lead section I found myself with more questions than answers. It's not clear at all about exactly what steroid diabetes is. The lead section Did not have any description of what the article will consist of and hardly grabbed my attention. There was little detail in the lead section and desperately needed more time spent on it.
 * Content:
 * I can say that all the information written in this article is relevant to the topic. I didn't read anything that sounded like it didn't belong in the article. It seems to me that everything written is up to date, I trust that what I was reading in this article was factual. The last time it was looked over and edited was September of 2022.
 * Organization and writing Quality:
 * I do not believe this article is well written, it was not clear or easy to read. The only reason it wasn't easy to read is because nothing was really explained in detail. you really have to know about steroid diabetes prior to reading this article or at least have somewhat of an understanding of it to be able to fully understand this article. But on a good note, I do like how its broken up into labeled sections and from what I could see there were no spelling errors.
 * Images and media:
 * This article unfortunately had no pictures what's so ever. I really wish It had at least one picture just to give readers an idea of what steroid diabetes is. It's always good to incorporate pictures and captions, it's good to use all possible ways to inform people on your topic.
 * Overall impressions:
 * Overall, this article was not good. I defiantly see where it needs improving. this article did not have enough information in it and was not clear as to exactly what steroid diabetes is. I think if anyone other than me, read this article they would be just as lost as I was.
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 2

 * Hearing Loss
 * Lead section:
 * I appreciate that the lead sections gets right to the definition of hearing loss in the first sentence. I didn't have to search for answers or have to read the sentence five times to understand what it was talking about. After reading the lead section I could clearly identify what the article was going to consist of. One thing I didn't like about the lead section was that instead of writing in a way that catches you, almost like a story it sounded more like a bulleted list. it just sounded like a list of facts instead of someone explaining what hearing loss is. I don't think that the lead section was overly detailed I just think it was a bit disorganized.
 * Content:
 * There was lots of information in this article and all of it was relevant to the articles topic there was no part where it went off course, It defiantly stayed on topic. everything made sense and there was nothing that didn't belong. This article reached all the most important aspects of the topic and made sure everything was explained and questions were answered. I believe this article is up to date and has accurate information, it says that the last time it was edited was January 27th, 2023.
 * Organization and writing Quality:
 * Overall, the article was pretty organized but there were some sections that I don't think were as organized as they should have been, for example the lead section. The article was broken into sections with different titles for each section, each part of the article listed many facts and consisted of no spelling errors. I loved how easy the article was to read, there was no section that I found difficult to read.
 * Images and media:
 * This article did incorporate pictures and also had a video in there. the only thing I would change is the very first picture at the top near the lead section. I think that first picture should be clearer. I also thing the captions could be a little more detailed.
 * Overall impression:
 * Overall, I have to admit I really enjoyed reading this article. Not only was it for the most part organized but it even had a definition section which I haven't seen in any other article so far. After reading this article I seemed to have actually learned a few things. I also like that at the end of the article they had all their references listed.
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 3

 * Microtia
 * Lead section:
 * I like how the lead section gives a clear definition of what Microtia is but, I think there should have been a little more detail put into it. Even though it explains what microtia is, it should have given a little more background on it. The lead section wasn't the greatest, but I do think it has potential, with a little more research it could be good. It did not include what the article will be discussing or what the article might consist of, so it kind of leaves you guessing what's next. The lead section was not overly detailed, and everything written related to the topic of the article.
 * Content:
 * Going through each section of the article I have determined that the information is relevant to the topic and there was nothing that didn't fit in or make sense. Even though I found this article to be informative, I do think there could be a few more sections added. Also, I think there's some areas that need more information, I think the article could have gotten a little more into depth about the topic. I did find at the bottom of the page that it was last edited in January 2023, so I believe the information in the article is up to date.
 * Organization and writing Quality:
 * the article was broken up into a few different sections and clearly labeled. I think this article had a lot of information but i don't like how that information was received. I believe they could have done a better job writing this and explaining things. although it wasn't difficult to understand the article, I do think they maybe could have worded somethings differently. while reading I did not catch any spelling errors and of course appreciated the highlighted words that i could click on to see the definition.
 * Images and media:
 * This article only consisted of two pictures, it would have been nice to see a few more pictures on there, especially with the amount of information they have on there.
 * Overall impression:
 * Overall, I can say that I did like this article, but I don't think there could be some work done to it. it was pretty short and feel like some information could have been added to it, along with some pictures. I have a hard of hearing son and feel like I knew more about the topic than the person who wrote it.
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Depression (mood)
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Narcissistic Personality Disorder
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources