User:Bharp14/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article to evaluate because I am a dental hygiene major and interested in learning about oral hygiene.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section:
My article's lead provides a clear introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. My article does provide a description of the article's major sections. No, the lead only provides information about what will be talked about throughout the article. I would say my lead is concise because it gives a description of what oral hygiene is, the importance of it and what can arise from bad oral hygiene.
Content:
Yes, my article's content is relevant to my topic and up to date. I don't see anything that is missing or content that does not belong on this page. No, my article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It also doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. Like for example there is no mention of the debate of fluoride, mental health in dental care or oral hygiene in low-income areas.
Tone and Balance:
Yes, this article is neutral because there is are no strong uses of the statements or words I, I believe, I strongly support. No, I don't think any of the claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position. I think the viewpoints that are overrepresented are about toothbrush and flossing. The points that are underrepresented are the effects of bad oral hygiene. Yes, there are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described. Yes, the article attempts to persuade the reader in favor or taking diligent care of your oral hygiene vs not taking bad care of your oral hygiene.
Sources and References:
Most of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Yes, the sources are thorough and reflect the topic. Some of the sources are current but most of them are not as recent and could use an update. Yes, the sources are written by a diverse number of authors and not just one. It includes historically marginalized individuals when possible. Yes, there are better sources available for the topics that have older articles to support their research. I checked a few links and yes, they do work.
Organization and writing quality:
This article is written, concise, clear, and easy to read based on the setup of the page. This article doesn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. The setup is clear and visually appealing to the eye when you are scrolling through the page.
Images and Media:
The article has many good images that show the reader what they are talking about in the article. Yes, the captions on the image support what is being shown and are relevant to the picture. Yes, all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way because they are set up next to the writing about that topic.
Talk page discussion:
The conversations that are going on in the talk page is that there are statements that there needs to be more references added for certain details and there needs to be better explanations of some topics. This article is rated a C-class article. Yes, it's part of the WikiProjects about Dentistry, Medicine, and Health and Fitness. Wikipedia discusses this topic more in depth than the way that we talk about it in class.
Overall impressions:
The article's overall status is it needs to be improved due to it being a C-class article. The article's strength is that it talks about the main major points of oral hygiene. This article can be improved by providing more source, giving more details about the minor points, and adding equity gaps. I would assess this article as being underdeveloped with room for improvement.