User:Shivanni prowell/sandbox/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

 * Health technology in the United States
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I am very much interested in the biomedical aspect of engineering and I would like to learn more about it.

Lead[edit]

 * Guiding questions

The lead does include an introductory sentence that sums up very and clearly the expanse of medical technology. The lead introduces all of the subtopics in the article but does not introduce anything that will not be covered upon later in the article. It's very concise and gets straight to the point without being confusing.


 * 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?

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions

All of the subtopics discussed in the article are very relevant to the entirety of the topic and does not stray in any way from it. The content is up to date for the most part, however I feel that it could be updated some more, considering one or more of the reference links does not work.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions

The article remains neutral and clearly states just the facts of the matter. While reading the 'Privacy of Health Data' section, it seemed that the author leaned more towards the side that most if not all people are wary about giving out their personal data in regards to technology that tracks such things. I don't see any viewpoints however that were over or under represented in the entirety of the article, and it does not try to persuade the reader in one way or the other.


 * 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?

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions

Most sources presented are backed up by a reliable secondary source, however the very first referenced article's link does not work, meaning the author has not updated his article in quite some time ( give or take 5 years or less).


 * 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?

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions

The article is very well written, and does not use too hard terminology that would be difficult for most to understand. It also sums up medical technology in a nice way, and leaves the reader with a clear understanding of medical technology.


 * 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?

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions

I feel that the article could use a little bit more visuals, seeing that there is only one picture posted no the article, and this one picture does not do the entirety of medical technology justice. The one image that is there, however, is well captioned and does depict the one aspect of the article it is focused on quite well. Also, the image itself is appealing.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * 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?

Overall impressions[edit]

 * Guiding questions

I feel that overall this is a very good article, it's not too lengthy to where you would lose interest easily and yet not to short so as to barely be informative, but it was just right.


 * 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?

Optional activity[edit]

 * 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: