User:Mmfas13/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?

Magnetic resonance microscopy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Start-class article. Short and underdeveloped. Talk page has no conversation yet. Lead section consists of two sentences only and could be expanded to better summarize the contents of the article. The content is also not up to date; the most recent source listed is from 2017. New sections could be added to include recent developments or content could be added to existing sections. More (recent) images could be added, though copyright rules need to be followed. Wikimedia commons has a photo which may be relevant (verify).

There seems to be some advertising against Wikipedia's policies in the article. In "Nomenclature" section, the article makes a reference to a specific scientist who leads the MRM group at Duke University. It seems this reference should be changed to cite only the name of the group/lab. In the "Differences between MRI and MRM" section, the last (fourth) bullet point mentions a specific MR equipment vendor and their products (the company name is also incorrectly cited here -- it should be "Bruker BioSpin", not "BrukerBio Spin"). This sentence should be removed.

Some content could also be expanded. In the "Differences between MRI and MRM" section, the first bullet point seems unfinished. At the least, it needs grammar correction and a period at the end of the sentence. The term "higher evolution" can also be further explained or explicitly connected to the following bullet points. The second bullet point could be edited to include numerical values of the magnetic fields and resolutions of MRM and MRI (or merged with the third bullet point about resolution).

It seems some references are missing/misplaced. The third bullet point under the "Differences" section needs a reference. The paragraph under the "Alternative MRM" section needs a reference.

Of the nine sources currently listed, five are scientific articles with the same first author. Need more diverse information.

The "Current Status of MRM" section may need to be updated.

The link in "External Links" is broken.