User:Writer of Science/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: (Diabetes)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I choose this topic because I am interested in the topic and would like to evaluate the quality and credibility of this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence is clear and provides a good definition of diabetes and its key symptom.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the Lead does a good job of quickly covering major aspects of the disease while also giving the reader a quick overview of what they are.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the Lead includes a small discussion of the economic cost of diabetes for both the united states and worldwide.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead has a good balance of general information and detail. A small change I would recommend is to only give a brief statement on the cost of diabetes and include a more detailed explanation later in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article is perfectly relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Looking at the revision history and citations the dates overall look quite recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I find everything in the article relevant and I can think of nothing that is obviously missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article briefly explains what populations are affected more than others.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? For this article it may be less relevant but nothing was noticed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, same as question 2.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, same as question 2.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, almost all information is cited. All citations look credible.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? As stated above content is all up to date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? After looking at a few citations, all authors seem credible and are from established journals
 * Check a few links. Do they work? After checking a few links they all worked and brought me to a credible peer reviewed journal.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The language used in the article was clear, concise and while some of it may require some understanding in biology I have found it not to be overly complicated.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors in grammar or spelling were found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I found each section to be of reasonable length and a good job was done on the content of each breakdown.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Each image included was of high quality and a source was provided for each image.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, a short and informational caption was given.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all images are cited and follow Wikipedia's regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I find them to be in appropriate places and appealing size. They can also be clicked on to access citation and view bigger sizes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? While I am personally not an expert in diabetes, I am aware that of the rapidly increasing discoveries of new treatments, symptoms, and consequences associated with this disease.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I did not find any information about this article and WikiProjects on the page.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? While some classes I have taken briefly discussed what diabetes is, I have never thoroughly had a discussion about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I find this article to be of overall great quality and a perfect introduction to the disease. It provides quite a bit of information that relatively easy to understand, giving the reader a great amount of general information together with some important details.
 * What are the article's strengths? This article's biggest strengths are its length, readability, and amount of information conveyed
 * How can the article be improved? As stated form the questions in the lead, I would only shortly introduce economic cost in the lead and add a section later in the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is well developed and covers many questions people would have on the topic.

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: