User:ThereisnoplanetB/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: Arteriolosclerosis
- It was under the To Do Cardiology Task Force/Medicine wikiProject
Lead
- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
The lead does include an overarching idea of what arteriolosclerosis is and the related medicinal symptoms as well as a brief mention of the type of arteriolosclerosis which is also the different sections. The lead only mentions the spelling of the two types which is not mentioned in the rest of the article but it is not overly detailed. In fact, it is a good amount of information for someone just looking for a shallow understanding of arteriolosclerosis. It does sound a little unprofessional by talking about the spelling and how it is commonly mixed up. However, the use of the greek/latin derivatives are very helpful in breaking down the vocabulary.
Content
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Is the content up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
The content of the article is only concerning the two types of arteriolosclerosis and the causes and associated diseases with each type. The presence of microscope imaging associated with each type is particularly useful. The content is mostly up to date with references from 2007-2015. There seems to be a lack of content on the overall subject. I do not know of the typical parts in a wikiArticle that discusses a medical condition but I feel that it should include more information such as causes, symptoms, treatment plans which this article only hints at but does not really approach in depth.
Tone and Balance
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral and does not even mention something related to a bias. Since this is a fairly neutral topic there are no bias claims nor is there enough information for there to be viewpoints that are over-/under- represented. The article maintains a neutral/generalized tone throughout the whole piece.
Sources and References
- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
The facts are all backed up by medical textbooks and peer reviewed articles and they are all about arteriolosclerosis and pathology. Most of the links are recent from 2007-2015 and most work as well with the exception of one to a medical textbook from 2007.
Organization
- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
The article is so concise it does not really say much and it is full of pertinent information. Reading the article is not too challenging and it flows pretty well. The article lacks any grammar or spelling errors and is broken down into the two types of arteriolosclerosis and the different causes and associations of each subtype.
Images and Media
- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
The article includes pathology images that enhance the underlying information of the disease. They could have a more descriptive caption but do adhere to the copyright regulations. They are in boxes to the right in the corresponding sections they respond to which is appropriate for the for the topic.
Checking the talk page
- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Talk page evaluation
There aren't too many talk pages on the site. The main discussion is from 2017 discussing merging the information with the other pages that discuss the two types of arteriolosclerosis. This was done that following October 2017 and nothing has happened sense. The article is rated start-class and mid-importance and is part of the Medicine WikiProjects. There is not much to analyze concerning the way Wikipedia discusses this topic since there is not much to the topic to begin with.
Overall impressions
- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- What are the article's strengths?
- How can the article be improved?
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Overall evaluation
The article is start-class and of mid-importance but rated as high-importance on the WikiProject Medicine to-do board. The article certainly needs a more robust explanation and relevant information and is underdeveloped in that sense. However, it is written well and is clear and concise. The pictures add a visual element to deeply understand the pathology. Perhaps to improve the article, all the relevant cause, history, association, symptoms and presentation could be added concerning arteriolosclerosis. After all the information is there, it will be possible to assess the quality of the article.
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: