User:Usedstarfighter/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: (Adam's apple)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Went randomly into anatomy, so picked adam's apple since it looked interesting to have a full article about it

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it provides a brief and clear definition of an adam's apple.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it stays in the relevant information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is sufficiently concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is all relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * From the info that I cross referenced from the NCBI, it seems the content is up-to-date to 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, everything that is lead into is there.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This topic is not particularly suited for this.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral in tone and position.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There seem to be no biases that I read.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Any opposing viewpoints are presented equally.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is no persuasive element to this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Though the sources seem to be accurate and thorough, they do not seem to be reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The lengthier source I found cited was in spanish, even though my medical vocabulary lacks, from what I could tell it is thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Several are from the wayback machine, so they are not
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It seems it was a multilingual undertaking, with sources in English, Spanish, and Russian, but history only loosely ties into this article, and it is handled to the extent it needs to be.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do, but they are old sites and not reliable sources of information.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well written, and readable
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not catch any on my read throughs.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It breaks down into a few sections that describe different aspects of the topic well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It has a few pictures that show different layers involved in an adam's apple
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * While all the captions are accurate, some are less specific about what they are
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It seems all the images are either from wikimedia commons or in public domain
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are organized well

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page has been silent for two years, but the last conversation was about why men would or wouldn't have as prominent adam's apples, and how one user was glad he didn't have one
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a class C article that relates to the WikiProject on anatomy
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I only just realized that this article was supposed to be related to the class, and have now put too much effort to cross reference and check as many sources for a second one, so I'll just take the points off

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is complete, if a bit stagnant by this point
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has accurate data and shows different arguments about the etymology of the adam's apple
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Its sources need to be upgraded to more reliable and newer sources
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is well developed on the front end, but the back end veered off topic a lot and has not seen any recent activity

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: