User:Ryleewerner/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](Provide a link to the article here.) Neonatal intensive care unit
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because when I graduate from IUP with my BSN in Nursing, I would like to be a NICU nurse. My first impression of this article was that it was very interesting learning how NICU nurses have changed over the years with all the technological advances.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
Lead Section- Include brief overview of the articles major sections.
Content Portion- topics related to the history could be more in depth. more recent findings in neonatal care and more recent technological advancements
Tone and Balance- article remains neutral throughout the whole text. There aren't really any minority or fringe viewpoints since it is based on the factual side of the topic. There is no bias or persuasion in the article.
Sources and References- Article includes citations. Could be more up to date for more recent perspectives. There could be better sources that include peer-reviewed articles. Yes, a few of the links I checked are functional.
Organization and Writing Quality- Article is clear and concise. I didn't notice and grammatical or spelling errors. Some sections should be expanded on and the addition of subheadings might improve the organization.
Talk Page Discussion- The discussions talk about improving the structure of the article and better sourcing. They discussions are mostly about sourcing.
Overall Impressions- The article is overall structured well. Strengths: neutral tone throughout the whole article, no bias, relevant content. Improvements: use more diversified sources, add more subheadings to make it easier to read, add more up to date and more detailed information.