User:WunderNeun/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: Electrocoagulation
 * I am interested in contributing to this article as part of my course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - It is concise, but arguably not very clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - yes, it mentions heavy metal removal in the Lead but does not detail this in the body.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - it is overly detailed in some sections, and not detailed enough in other sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - The medical-related information is not relevant to the topic, as it actually should be under electrosurgery or electrocautery, which are the correct medical terms
 * Is the content up-to-date? - No, seems to be missing recent developments in the field
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The medical content does not belong

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? - no, it has no negative information about the technology
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - yes, it appears to be very pro-EC
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - seems like a poorly-written advertisement for EC

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - no, it is missing sources all over the place
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - no
 * Are the sources current? - no
 * 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? - not really. uses lots of jargon
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - none that are immediately obvious
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes, though some topics are missing

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - no
 * Are images well-captioned? - N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - people mostly talking about how bad the article is
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - it is part of the medicine wikiproject, but should actually be part of an engineering wikiproject, probably, as the term EC is more properly used when discussing the non-medical uses
 * 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? - Start class
 * What are the article's strengths? - has some technical information
 * How can the article be improved? - sources, less bias, written in a way that is more accessible
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - not very complete.

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: