User:Wagnermr/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.


 * Luteinizing hormone: (Luteinizing hormone)
 * I chose this article on luteinizing hormone, because my specific aims paper on PCOS involves luteinizing hormone. I figured it would be a good idea to get to know more about luteinizing hormone before I dig into all the hormones involved with PCOS. Luteinizing hormone is also really interesting, because it was one of the first hormones I learned about in my second anatomy class. Learning about luteinizing and the other hormones involved in female menses has made me think about becoming an OBGYN.

Luteinizing hormone

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It includes just less than half of the major topics.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead provides previous names for the hormone though.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and to the point.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * All the content is about LH or closely related to LH.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I looked at the edit history and everything seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content is good. I think some things in the article could include more information to help clarify some topics, like the effects of LH on spermatogenesis in males.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes. This article provides a more detailed content for the effects on women than in men. This makes sense because LH plays a larger role in women than in men, but information that could have been applied to the effects on men were not given.

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?
 * Not really, there seems to be a fairly good balance
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the facts are backed up. A few things were not cited all all.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Many of the sources are from the years 1990 to 2010. There are a handful that were published within the last five years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there were only two or three repeat authors out of the thirty-one. No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the random ones I clicked on worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is concise and clear. A lot of the jargon is upper level, I had to look up a few words while reading.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few inconsistencies with the hormone abbreviations. There are also a few run-on sentences.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, very!

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but there could be more; there are only four. I.e.: I think it would be beneficial to have a picture of the structure in the section where it talks about the structure of the hormone.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not really. One has a really good caption. Another one of the captions says: "effects of LH on the body" for a picture of the LH pathway. The other two hardly have captions or any at all.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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 is barren. It has a lot of seemingly rude comments that just attack things within the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated "start class" from the five WikiProjects it's a part of.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses this topic from all stand points; like related disorders, the genes it's located on, the structure of the hormone, etc.. . Where as in anatomy 2, we discussed it and its roles in the human body.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Starting class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article does a good job of explaining the structure, genetics, and effects of LH in females.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could include more pictures and better explain the role of LH in males.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article has a base for more information to be added to. Overall, I think it could use some TLC and more information could be expanded upon.

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: Talk:Luteinizing hormone ("LH article evaluation". It's at the bottom of the talk page)