User:VivCDBSpr2025/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]Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]Autoimmune disorders have had increased incidences in modern medicine. It is particularly concerning when triggered by something the body produces on its own and has evolved to produce naturally, such as progesterone in women. What was particularly interesting about this article was how it addressed
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article did a good job of describing what is currently known about autoimmune progesterone dermatitis. Although its etiology is not well understood, the author outlined this first observed history of the disorder with citations to the original publication, how it presents, as well as how it is currently diagnosed. I noticed that some of the research articles cited leaned on the older side, ranging from 1964 to 2018 at the newest, with most falling in the range of 2002-2011. Additionally, I noticed that some additional reading was provided, which included an article from 2022 discussing a case study of how the disorder was treated. I think including a treatment section would've rounded out the article well, however otherwise it was well formatted and clear. It could have used more detail in some parts, however because this is a more niche topic, I think it was well researched and had an appropriate amount of citations for the information provided in the article. Things were cited properly where needed, and well formatted.