User:Ryanpm11/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?

Neuroscience

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.)

I chose this article, as my graduate degree is in neuroscience. Having the general neuroscience page being able to provide a good baseline of understanding for the lay reader is important for helping the field grow. My initial thought is that while overall the article does cover a lot of information, some of it is poorly written, or just doesn't really belong on an overview page, and would be better suited for pages that have more specific focuses.

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.)

Ryanpm11 Evaluation of the Neuroscience Page

Overall, the Neuroscience wikipedia page seems to have a good overview of the subject, however I do believe there is room for improvement.

The lead section was a real strength of this page, giving a concise overview as to what neuroscience means, the fields of science it draws from, and the briefest mention at how the field has developed over time.

Over the body of the page, I generally noticed that the tone was well balanced, and as this is a general overview, avoided most controversial topics. On more of a writing quality note, there were some paragraphs that relied heavily on the same language, using "pioneered" or "increasingly" to excess, but this is easily remedied.

The first area where I noticed that the page may have some issues was in the contents section of the page, where under Neuroscience and medicine, the first tab mentioned artificial neuron implants. While this is certainly a novel area that could have therapeutic benefits, it seemed odd that it was given such a point of emphasis on the general neuroscience page, as it seems more specific, rather than giving an overview, such as the other subsections under modern neuroscience. I clicked on this link, and found that my suspicions were correct, this should not be included on the page. The modern neuroscience section was designed to give a definition to fields of neuroscience, and a short introduction into the overarching questions of the subfields.

The Neuroscience and medicine section's main body followed the goal of the page, giving a general overview as to what this subfield of neuroscience focuses on. However, the artificial neuron implant section was one line of misspellings, and conjecture. This subsection had many issues, including the sourcing being two articles from magazines. The entirety of this section states "recent advances in neuromorphic microchip technology have led a group of scinctists to create an artificial neuron that can repleace real neurons in disiaese." While the sources likely are not up to the Wiki standards, this sentence is even worse, as it makes claims that are inaccurate. The two magazine articles discuss how down the line the artificial neurons could replace real neurons, however at the moment the scientists are still developing them.

While discussing this, the neuroscience and medicine section probably should be entitled neuropharmacology, or something that better describes

The other subsections under neuroscience and medicine entitled translational research, should be made into its own section under modern neuroscience, and retitled integrative neuroscience. This is a phrase mentioned in the body of text, and it more aptly fits what is being discussed, which is not under neuroscience and medicine, rather is more about the combining of different fields of neuroscience study.

Another area where sourcing is weak is the Engineering applications of neuroscience. This section is sourced off of a powerpoint that is written by someone employed at a neuroengineering company, so while the powerpoint may be accurate, it is hardly an unbiased source for the information. The second and third paragraphs are sparse, and while they link to other wikipedia pages, they do not cite any sources for the information.

Other sources for the page appear to be good, with most being textbooks, primary sources for defining organizations/Nobel prize winners, or review articles.

Overall, this is a well developed page, where I think one person took control of a couple sections and drove the article to a point where it needs serious improvement, and to be frank, those sections should be completely deleted, as they are more in the specifics and would belong under a neuroengineering page.