User:Ss148/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: Radiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article specifically to evaluate because the topic is of interest to me mainly because of my father and the fact that is his profession.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

This article begins with a sentence that summarizes the main focus of the article stating "The article focuses on radiology as a medical specialty. See also medical imaging and radiation therapy; Radiology (journal). For industrial application, see radiography or industrial CT scanning.". Then the article continues with a definition of the main topic which in this case is Radiology. In the introduction, the article briefly states the various medical imaging techniques and in order to describe them more in detail later on in the article. Hence, this made the lead concise and relevant to the information that was present in the remaining part of the article. Moreover, the headings and subheadings were clear and arranged in an organized order.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article deals with the field of radiology as a whole which is why the article includes content regarding the many aspects of the field in detail. The article included a range of sources, some of which are up to date and are from the years 2015 or after while others are a bit old. Since radiology is a field in medicine and is constantly evolving, such an article would require that the sources to be constantly updated and new information to be added.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article I chose is an informative article and it mainly includes facts about a certain topic. Hence, while reading the article, I found that the tone was generally neutral and it wasn't aimed at persuading the reader to a particular position.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

As mentioned before, many of the sources are current and up to date, however there are some parts in the article that lack references or there is only one reference for an entire paragraph. It would have been considered more reliable. The sources were mainly from journals such as the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology which would be considered as a suitable and credible source to utilize.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article was divided into many sections with headings on each section indicating the topic at hand. Through this way, it was much easier for the reader to get the information and enjoy reading the topic. While reading the article, there weren't any grammar mistakes that caught my attention which made me think that this article was well reviewed.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article includes images that are well suited for the topic at hand. For instance, it includes an example of MRI after explaining what an MRI scan is. The article does so for other medical imaging techniques which would give a reader a better idea about the differences between them. The captions of the image accurately describe what the image is and provide the reader with a clearer idea of what is being presented. There are some images that belong to Wikipedia while the others are of the author's own work which does not go against Wikipedia's copyright regulations.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

This article is a part of the WikiProjects and it was under the field of Medicine and in the topic "Radiology Task force". The talk of the article mainly focuses on the fact that the article wasn't able to differentiate properly between the various Radiology department imaging modalities and about separating a topic that was merged in an article and dive more in depth into each.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article can deal with more topics and separate some of the ideas that it merged into and dive more in depth into each. Content wise, it can also be updated and there are new information surfacing in this field that could be included. However, even with the content that was present the article was divided into organized sections that made it easier to read and included images that allows the reader to get a better sense of what the article is dealing with.


 * 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

 * 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: