User:UrosRogan/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: Fall prevention
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. One of my course assignments were to evaluate a UpToDate's article called Fall: Prevention in community dwelling older persons. Therefore, I choose the similar article that is on Wikipedia.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence, but it is not concisely described. It is clearly stated that Fall prevention helps to reduce older people from falling, but it needs more details. I believe that this section has a brief description with add facts and numbers. One of the information that the Lead has is hip fracture and focuses on it, but never mentioned in the rest of the article. The Lead is not overly detailed and has enough information, it is brief and pretty comprehensive.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Somewhat
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
Article is content relevant to the topic, and has information regarding the topic. Content is also up to date. More content and information about medication that helps older adults to prevent falling is necessary, but there is no content that does not belong to this article. This article does not deal with Wikipedia's equality gaps and nothing that is historically related regarding underrepresented population is not addressed. This article talks about all older adults, no matter of race, gender ethnicity, etc., and the strategies of how to prevent falls.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overrepresented - no; underrepresented - yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is neutral, and is written in unbiased and accurate tone. It provides information regarding to its topic, and nothing else. There are no biases toward a particular position in this article. It provides the information and statistics about certain group of people (e.g. People over the age of 65 are most likely to...), but it is just a statistic, and it is not biased whatsoever. No viewpoints are overrepresented, but there are some that are underrepresented. There are viewpoints that lack additional information and facts. This is a non persuasive article, and it only indicates information about falls in older adults, and statistical facts behind it.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
An improvement is needed regarding the reliable secondary sources of information. There are few reliable sources and some are not, so finding better sources is needed. Sources in the article do reflect the literature on the topic. Sources are current, but need more credible sources from credible pages. There are many sources and they are written by a multiple authors. Links of the sources attached do work, as I checked them.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
One of the positive aspects of this article is that it is well-written and everything is in order, which makes it easier for readers. There are no grammatical errors, therefore readers will not get confused by reading it. The article is also well-organized, where main points are broken down into sections, where each section has its own content, but some sections need more information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
/

Checking the talk page

 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The conversation on regarding article is mostly about what changes to make and what websites to add to make the article better. This is a C-rated article and it is a part of WikiProject Medicine.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall status is good, but still need a lot of work. Article's strength is that the readers will not have a problem reading this article because of its organization and concise. Fields that this article needs to be improved is that it needs more information in certain sections, as well as the citation and its credibility. I believe that the article is somewhere in between well-developed and underdeveloped, because of the weaknesses that I stated in the previous sentence.

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: