User:Vre99/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Type 1 diabetes

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have type one diabetes, so this topic is very important to me. There are many stereotypes, and it is hurtful to people who suffer from this autoimmune disease. This topic is important because more people need to be educated on what type one diabetes is, what causes it, and how to treat it. I have met so many people who have no idea what type one diabetes is, so their only knowledge is the stereotypes that are incorrect. I was honestly impressed with this article, because the information is accurate and not stereotypical. It was also concise, so it was easy for someone with little or no knowledge to understand.

Evaluate the article
Upon first reading this article, I felt as if the introductory sentence was concise and clear. However, I now think it could be made more concise, but it may lose valuable information, so I am not 100% sure. The lead section does a great job briefly explaining the main points of the article. Each topic seems to be brought up, without going into too much detail. It does not seem to include any information that is not included in the article. In my opinion, the lead section is concise and covers a lot of information.

The article's content is relevant to the topic because the subject itself is broad. They covered symptoms, treatments, causes, management, complications, research, and other information about type one diabetes. The content is also up to date because they spoke about recent research and the article was edited recently. From what I can tell, they are not missing any information, but they could add more information to different sections of the article. I do not believe this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Type one diabetes can affect anyone, it does not target underrepresented groups.

This article seems to have a neutral point of view, it does not seem biased in any way to me. They bring up type two diabetes and slightly explain the differences, without using any negative stereotypes. I do not believe any of this information is biased, nor do I believe that any certain viewpoint is over or underrepresented. The content is very factual, which I appreciate a lot. I do not want to read anyone's opinion when researching a topic. I did not feel as if this article was trying to persuade the reader at all, it was very informative and factual.

Each fact in the article seems to be linked to a source. The sources are thorough and current, and very reliable. I did not notice any sources that were biased or stereotypical. Each link that I clicked on worked correctly, it either led me to a PDF file or a website.

The article is well written and easy to follow. It is structured well and very concise and clear. I did not notice any apparent spelling or grammatical mistakes.

I only saw three images included in this article, and all three were captioned correctly. I think more pictures would be beneficial to the reader. They could be strategically placed to make the information easier to visualize. All three images adhere to Wikipedias copyright regulations.

On the Talk page discussion, they were discussing references being too old, unreliable, and adding new research information. These people seem to care a lot about this topic and ensuring that all information is accurate and up to date. This article is considered a level 5 vital article and rated as B-class. It is part of WikiProjects Medicine. Wikipedia says this topic is of high importance, but in class, it does not seem like it is treated as a very important topic, in my opinion.

Overall, this article is very accurate and informative. It seems to have many strengths, such as reliable sources, factual and unbiased information, and up-to-date sources that discuss current research. This article could be improved by providing more images, more information on certain topics within type one diabetes, and maintaining current research. The article seems to be well-developed but is lacking in images. I believe this article is very well written, but a few minor changes may improve this article.