User:Taviasmith/sandbox

Article Evaluation
the following article analysis questions were answered based on the Wikipedia page for type 1 diabetes. The article had a lot of statistics that seemed like a tangent conversation to the main topic. They seemed out of place at times and confused me. At the end of the article, there was a section about “brittle diabetes” that confused me because it didn’t seem to fit in with the rest of the information presented around it. It seemed to be randomly tacked on at the end and not integrated in with the other information well. It could’ve just been omitted. The article doesn’t try to persuade the reader one way or another. The information is presented in a neutral tone that is just educational. Any claims that were used were back up by a source or two. However, sometimes the article uses words like “apparently” or “seems” which makes the information appear less certain. The fact that type 1 diabetes effects a large amount of people was repeated over and over throughout the article by using different forms of the same general statistics. I felt like that was overstated as it was not necessary to repeat over and over. The only thing that I thought was underrepresented was the importance and information of research into type 1 diabetes. All the citations that I checked had working links and supported the claims made in the article. Each fact referenced was followed by a cited source. The sources that I checked were all from reviewed journal articles or established health associations that discussed type 1 diabetes. They seemed to be all reliable sources from what I saw. The first source was from the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. I’m not sure if a diabetes centered organization discussing diabetes would constitute a “biased” source, but assuming that it does, the bias of this source was not openly stated within the article. I felt like the Research section of the article was underrepresented. Each type of research only had a few sentences maximum about them. Mostly the Talk page just consists of editors telling others that they were deleting some information as it was either in the wrong section, out of date or incorrect. This article was a class assignment for a college course and is within WikiProject Medicine. It has a class B rating for quality and was rated as being of high importance. Wikipedia articles have to have a large amount of reliable sources where all the information comes from to make the information be more believable. The article I read was also more of an encyclopedia in the way it had all the information imaginable about that topic (type 1 diabetes) all compiled into a single location. In addition, the information was laid out in a straight forward manner that did not try to persuade the readers.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular    position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links    work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 *  Is each fact referenced with an    appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are     these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? 
 * Is any information out of date? Is    anything missing that could be added?
 *  Check out the Talk page of the    article. 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 similar topics in class?