User:ImpactOfCancer16/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 because it is in the Start-class scale, meaning that the article is not fully complete. Lung cancer screening is something that many people may be curious about, especially when determining whether to get tested or not. Therefore, it is important that the articles they are reading provide enough information about the scans, as well as benefits, risks, and other aspects they might be curious about. Looking briefly over the article, I noticed that there was not a section for each of the three main types of screening, and more importantly, for low-dose computerized tomographic screening as it was said to be the most recommended. There was a guidelines section, which is helpful to know what organization are recommending. However, there was not a benefits section. This page had a risks section and although benefits might seem obvious, I believe it should be written to help someone visually and mentally compare their options.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The lead section uses bolding of the first words to highlight the topic of the article, and has an introductory sentence that clearly describes that lung cancer screening is. The section goes on to describe the importance of screening, prevalence rates, and types of screening. However, the lead section does not talk about the major sections of the article. It also mentions three types of scans, then only discusses the risks of one. It does not define any of the three scans, or contain direct links to more information about each. These links come later, but they should each have their own section, or be linked the first time these topics show up.
Content
The main topic of this article is lung cancer screening, but the history section is the largest. The risks section seems to be too short, without properly explaining and examining the risks. The guidelines and risk seem to be most important to the reader, with history being less important. This article is missing a huge portion of knowledge about the actual screening techniques and processes, as well as benefits to screening. Further, the Attendance section did not make a lot of sense. It should be structured more clearly to describe the role of poverty in people getting screened, or the section could be fully removed. This whole section seems out of place, and not helpful when trying to learn more about lung cancer screening. If it was turned into a section about how screening can be offered at a variety of places, that would be more beneficial. It is also important to note that this article has a warning about the content only dealing with the United States population, which is good for Americans, however, it neglects how screening may affect or be different in other countries. Though it says it is only aimed to the United States, the Attendance section mentions a study from the UK, making it out of place for the rest of the article.
Tone and Balance
In the History section, the article talks about CTs and how they have been tested. They mention both positive and negative findings, but ultimately describe how CTs came to be the most recommended form of screening. Due to my general lack of knowledge about screening, I am unsure if promoting the CT is biased, or if it is correct guidance.
Sources and References
The article uses up-to-date sources on lung cancer screening and research articles from medical journals and credited medical websites. Looking through the sources, there seem to be a lot of different articles used. Some articles focus on lung cancer screening, some of CT, and some of the history. The authors are both men and women, and seem to contain a diverse spectrum of doctors. Due to the fact that many articles are coming from medical journals, they are almost always peer-reviewed, therefore, adequate sources are being used for this article. When clicking on links, they do take you to outside sources that work.
Organization and Writing Quality
The article is mostly well-written, making the ideas clear, especially for someone with little medical knowledge. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The article was well-organized for the most part. A benefits section should have been added and the Attendance section should have been reworked. The attendance section was the most confusing, seeming to have no main point or conclusion.
Images and Media
The article includes three images and one video about CT scans. The first image shows the CT scanner machine and has a caption about the purpose of the machine. The first imagine is in the history second, the video is in the guidelines section, and the last two photos are in the history section. All have captions explaining what the photos or videos are showing. However, the video and the last two photos are hard to understand for someone who has little medical knowledge on scans.
Talk Page Discussion
On the talk page, there is not a lot of discussion happening. Two users modified external links on the page, one user created a work plan for editing the article, and another negatively critiques the article, explaining how science journals are much different than wikipedia articles. The article was the subject of a course assignment developed by student editors. The article is rated as a Start-class article, making it a lower-tiered article. It has an outline, but still has a way to go in terms of providing all the necessary information. It is part of the medicine wiki-project category. We have discussed in class the differing guidelines for screening protocols. This article lays out the guidelines from the USPSTF and the NCCN, but does not focus on the history, like we did in class.
Overall Impression
Overall, the article presented a clear meaning for what lung cancer screening was, but did not give enough information about the three mains types of scans, and the risks and benefits for each. The article is underdeveloped, but working in more information would help this issue. A strength in this article was that there was a guidelines section, which can help the reader understand the importance of screening and encourage them when making a decision. It was rated as a start-class article, so there is still work to be done, but has a good premise.