User talk:Aangi14/sandbox2

Article Evaluation

This evaluation is in reference to the article on Testosterone.

Content


 * The article is relatively well constructed as a whole and does not lead the reader astray from the topic.
 * Subsection 1.5 should contain subtopic links in the article contents for ease of access and organization
 * Within the above referenced subsection, the subheading titled "Motivation" is unnecessary and can be placed within the introductory section of the subsection
 * In my opinion, Other Animals should be placed above History for better continuation of ideas for the reader

Tone


 * Tone is generally impersonal and professional throughout most of the article
 * Persuasion is not attempted
 * In subsection Adult, under subtitle Aggression and criminality, more frequent citation and a possible review of phrasing may be necessary to avoid sounding biased early on in the section, however this issue dissipates toward the end

Sources


 * More frequent citation throughout the article would be helpful in avoiding indication of bias
 * Citations are reliable

talk Page


 * The article is rated as level-4 Vital Article and is B-Class
 * Threads exploring additional new information about the topic have been proposed and are waiting approval and insertion into the article
 * there is also the proposition to produce a parent article which would summarize the both Testosterone and Testosterone (medication), or to revise the hormone based article to focus less on the use of testosterone as a drug. This has apparently since been resolved as this issue is no longer apparent.

Picking A Topic
Possible Articles

*This page is start class and allows for much room for improvement, however it is more developed than a stub article and I have a starting point to build on
 * Sex Hormone Binding Globulin

*This is a stub article that does not feature much user friendly information, nor does it elaborate on the hormone itself from a protein product or genetic sequence view
 * Growth Hormone 1

*This stub does not adequately cover the topic beyond a bare-bones definition and has immense room for expansion and refinement
 * Pulsatile secretion

Aangi14 (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation:

Content: There isn't much information yet, but the ideas are great. With more expansion included in each topic I feel like this would be a great article.

Tone: As most of this article is just notes, there is no tone yet.

Citations: They are present throughout and seem to be valid through the course of the notes. Leannefogarty (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)