User:Awatson723/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Parkinson's disease

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I am deeply intrigued by Parkinson's disease and its study due to its profound impact on individuals' lives and the opportunity it presents for scientific advancements. Parkinson's disease is a complex neurological disorder characterized by a range of symptoms, including motor impairments and non-motor manifestations, that significantly affect a person's quality of life. By studying Parkinson's disease, I hope to contribute to the understanding of its underlying mechanisms, explore potential therapeutic interventions, and improve the lives of those affected by this condition. The multifaceted nature of the disease, its neurological basis, and the potential for interdisciplinary research excite me, and I am motivated to pursue this field to make a meaningful difference in the lives of individuals with Parkinson's disease.

Evaluate the article

The Wikipedia page on "Parkinson's Disease - Signs and Symptoms" offers a comprehensive examination of the characteristic signs and symptoms associated with Parkinson's disease.

Content: The content provided in the article is highly informative, covering a wide range of topics related to the signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease. It begins with a concise introduction that provides an overview of the disease, its causes, and prevalence, establishing a contextual understanding. The article then delves into the core symptoms of Parkinson's disease, including bradykinesia, tremor, rigidity, and postural instability, providing detailed explanations for each symptom. Additionally, it discusses non-motor symptoms such as cognitive impairments, mood disorders, sleep disturbances, and autonomic dysfunctions. The content is well-researched and presents a comprehensive overview of the topic.

Structure: The article follows a logical structure that enhances its navigability. It commences with a clear introductory section, offering a concise overview of Parkinson's disease. Subsequently, it divides the signs and symptoms into subsections, making it easy for readers to locate specific information. The subsections cover motor symptoms, non-motor symptoms, and a section dedicated to the prodromal stage of the disease. This organized structure improves the article's readability and accessibility, allowing readers to find the desired information efficiently.

Sources and References: The article incorporates an extensive list of references, contributing to its credibility. These references include scientific studies, books, and reputable sources, enabling readers to verify the accuracy of the information presented. The use of reliable sources strengthens the reliability of the article and ensures that readers can access further information if desired.

Accuracy and Neutrality: The information provided in the article appears to be accurate and up-to-date, aligning with current medical knowledge regarding the signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease. The article maintains a neutral tone throughout, presenting the information in an unbiased manner without promoting specific treatments or viewpoints. This neutrality is crucial in providing readers with an objective understanding of the topic.

Accessibility and Language: The article is written in language that is generally accessible to a wide range of readers. While some medical terminology is used, it is adequately explained, ensuring comprehension by non-experts. The inclusion of subheadings, bullet points, and a clear structure further enhances the article's readability, making it easier for readers to digest the information.

Overall, the Wikipedia page on "Parkinson's Disease - Signs and Symptoms" provides a reliable and informative resource for individuals seeking information on the signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease. The content is well-researched, the structure is logical, and the references enhance the article's credibility. The accuracy and neutrality of the information, along with the accessible language and format, contribute to the article's value as a source of knowledge. However, it would be beneficial to address areas for improvement, such as incorporating recent updates, providing more detailed information on non-motor symptoms and the prodromal stage, including visual aids, and briefly discussing treatment options. Making these revisions would further enhance the article's value and ensure its relevance to current knowledge on Parkinson's disease. ~~~~