User:Sandisk9045/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?

Vagus nerve stimulation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because the lab I am in does work on vagus nerve stimulation, and I am writing about it as a topic for a hopeful review paper. With that in mind, I figured I had enough general expertise to notice if anything seems plainly incorrect or insufficient explanation-wise.

Evaluate the article

I think the lead section is relatively insufficient to describe vagus nerve stimulation as a treatment. While indeed the most commonly applied form of it is through direct/invasive stimulation by an implanted electrode system, it is ALSO delivered non-invasively through the skin. There is enough research available to discuss its basics and the article even mentions later that VNS can be performed non-invasively in the context of stroke/cluster headaches so it seems odd that it is not mentioned at the beginning.

The content of the article is generally good; everything is correct/in line with current research and not plainly out-of-date. That being said, acetylcholine should be mentioned as one of the 'neurotransmitter systems' affected by VNS, but it is not. Additionally, so me of the sections on 'mechanisms of action' are so short (literally a single sentence) that I'd wonder why they even bothered to mention it if they're not going to explain, for example, what the role is of the vagus nerve in the gut-brain axis.

The writing quality is generally good enough. There is not much to write in this field as far as what is accepted fact--especially with mechanisms--so the writing is appropriately curt and vague. However, it is sometimes definitively not good. For example, in "Impacting the gut-brain axis" section it states "VNS may influence the vagus nerve" rather than "does"--well duh. Since when was that up for debate?

Image-wise the article is sufficient; however, going back to my first point, it would be good to have another image of non-invasive vagal stimulation. There are commercial devices approved and available for this, so it would not be difficult to find.

Overall, I think the article is serviceable but somewhat underdeveloped. There are certain points where quite a bit more information could be shared while remaining close to what is in fact known without straying to far into topics that are actively being debated/studied.