User:WAR2020UPRC/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: Cerebrum
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The main reason why I choose to evaluate this article is because my bachelor's degree is psycology and we are currently studying the brain.


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, at the beginning of the aritcle they give us an introductory sentence of waht we found in this article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, they mention the cerebrum part that will be explain in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but they leave them in hyperlink, we could say, so you can click and go to another page and see what they are talking about.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead it's overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the articles content it's relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the articles was editen on september 12 of this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In my opinion, there is content that it is missing. They mention it at the begginning, but they don't talk more in the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, this article doesn't deal with one wikipedia gaps or historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, this articles is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the main purpose of this article is to inform, they are not viewpoints. But they are concepts that are underrepresented that should be represented. 8
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, this article just inform about the topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all the articles ares backed uo by secondary reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they reflect the avaibles literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most of the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, they are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, this article include images, and it's great, becuase they are people that are more visual.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they adhere to wikipedias copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * They are conversations, but they aren't related to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I couldn't find this information.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The aritcles overall status is to inform.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Evrything, everything its's well develop, every idea its precisely, it doesn't miss anything. This article gives you the basic information of every part of the cerebrum and it's goes from easy to hard.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * For me, it's a great article. It's precise and clean, but I would add some more information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well developed, well explaind and it's acurrate.

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: