User:Simba2013/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: Beth Levine (physician)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article was listed as high importance but still in the start category on Wiki Project Women Scientists.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Not really. Although there is an introductory sentence, it simple lists the titles of different positions that Dr. Levine currently holds rather than making any mention of what her work involves or what it impacts.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. There is no organization to this article. It is only a paragraph that is not organized into sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is no lead section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No specific lead section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Whatever is contained in the article is relevant to Dr. Levine's career. It is just incomplete, with not enough details about each.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The information in the article has not been updated for 4 years, so likely it is not up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * We are missing details on Dr. Levine's research currently, her previous research and positions as well as details on her educational background and life background.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. The article lists her current positions, education and briefly what her work involves. It is neutral in tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. Because the article only lists the bare bones of her life, there isn't any bias apparent in that.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The paragraph spends more time covering her background education rather than her current research and its impacts.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Although the sources used are reliable (the references used are Dr. Levine's faculty profile from the University of Texas and Howard Hughes Medical Centre), they both overlap in the information they present. They also only have very brief information in list form.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No. Since they are faculty profiles, they only offer brief information on Dr. Levine's background and list her publications and projects.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes the sources are current. They contain her most recent publications and research.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Two external links, which contained announcements for awards Dr. Levine has won, are not longer active.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is too concise - it misses out on important background and relevance for Dr. Levine's work. It is not very easy to read and it is presented in a small paragraph without structure or flow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. It is a single paragraph without organization or flow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images.
 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is no active conversation on the article talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is marked by the Wiki Project Women Scientists as a start article of high importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * No discussion - cannot compare

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Unsure what this means.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It captures her importance to the scientific community, especially in the field of autophagy, by listing her positions and awards related to this area.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be organized better, with a lead section and other common sections. It can use some images. It can use background information to contextualize Dr. Levine's research.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is under-developed. There are the bare bones of the start of the article, but basically all that information has to be expanded.

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: