User:Thewiecker/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: Hippocratic Corpus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I wrote a paper on this topic a few weeks prior, so I figured it met the class requirements and was also something I knew a great information about,

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does. It clearly explains what the Corpus is and how it relates to Hippocrates and his teachings on medicine
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it includes a description on how the authorship is varied on different accounts and perspectives given.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * In a way, yes. For a basic paraphrase, the corpus is describes in the lead section as the foundation for all which future Medical systems would be built. I feel like there was enough details to back that claim up in the article (although it did claim that laid the basis for empyemas today.)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, it's concise. In my personal opinion, I wished it offered a little more detail of things we saw in the article (i.e. the theories and readings), instead of just saying how they vary.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it explains the differing case histories in the corpus along with the reflections (given with the reason and experience - which a lot of articles don't do in the topic of the scientific status of medicine and also topics like "natural vs divine casualty", medical ethics, urology with many attributions to the corpus itself and the explanations within them.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the last time it was updated was the 5th of October, 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * To me, yes... the "Style" section, mainly because I understand that it's important to know that many different authors contributed to the Hippocratic Corpus, but I don't think it was necessary to have it's own section to it because it didn't make so much sense with the flow and the nature of the article itself.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, this topic is definitely not underrepresented and doesn't present on anything related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, I feel like it was written very neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the last sentence of the lead section (I just feel like it may appear leaning too heavily on importance that hasn't really been backed up but it may just be me - because there is a source for it but nothing that I can perceive as too definite.)
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I feel like this was written pretty evenly with equal length in almost all sections of the explanations. What surprised me was the amount of representation the article of "wine" had, so I guess yeah, you could say that I think that was overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I think it was written neutrally.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the facts that I can perceive are backed up with research articles in the references section
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, I think so (though they have to vary based on the many different topics seen in the Hippocratic Corpus itself.)
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, no. Most, with the exception of one article published in 1999, 2005, and 2010, most were published before the 1980's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, we had one author in 1891, one in 1911, one in 1923, with most being between 1950's-1980's, and then some after at 1993, 2005, 2010.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The one's with an attached blue link (mainly an ISBN number or a doi: link), yes, they work. But a lot of references are without them.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I thought it was clear and easy to read (but probably because I already wrote an article on it previously so it could be that I knew a lot of the information to be presented. But for someone who wouldn't know anything, I would think it would be very detailed and probably hard to figure out originally.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were a few sentences that I felt were so short that they felt like Run-Ons and put there without much comparison and explanation.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, that's one of the main reasons why I liked this wikipedia article (is because of how thorough that the topics are and how they flow with the major points.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there were four images, 3 of which I truly felt like enhanced the topic (two pictures of the Corpus, one of Hippocrates, and one reference to the Greek "ostrakon" in the wine section.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * When you blow them up, yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, I believe they did adhere (but since they were photographs of known people/works, I could be wrong.)
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Since there were only four, I wouldn't lean toward either side, but they fit in which part of the article was being discussed.

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 little explanation of some of the content (i.e. medical techniques) and the importance of the Hippocratic Corpus to modern medicine (which is something that definitely needs to be added.)
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * it's a level 4 vital article, but a part of the WikiProject for Medicine, Greece, Classical Greece and Rome, and History of Science
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * For online, it was really hard to tell. Wikipedia went into a lot more discussion compared to what I learned (though no fault to anyone), and it offered a lot more information to the sections and the meaning behind them.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Think it was really lengthy and well-described
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Could have some more consciness in areas and more descriptions in others. I think some things could be taken out because they needed to be moved or just didn't fit.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it was well-developed, but wikipedia things that it needs to be improved since it's currently under construction.

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: