User:Csteel3777/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 articles are you evaluating?[edit]

Undernutrition in children

Child health and nutrition in Africa

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

I chose the article on "Undernutrition in children" because it more specifically delves into malnutrition and its causes and resulting illnesses.

I chose the article on "Child health and nutrition in Africa" because it focuses on the region of Africa as a whole while still discusses child health as a whole.

Evaluate the article[edit]

For the sake of this evaluation, the "Undernutrition in children" article will be article 1 and the "Child health and nutrition in Africa" will be article 2.

Lead Section:

Article 1: The article does a good job at opening with a basic description of what undernutrition in children is, leading into the remainder of the article. The lead section doesn't explicitly dive into what the remaining topics of the article will be, but it does briefly overview what the main causes of malnutrition are which is the primary subject throughout the article. I think that the information is concise and relevant to include in the opening paragraphs.

Article 2: I think that this article does a good job at concisely overviewing what the rest of the article will be about, however I don't think it very explicitly describes what the major sections of the article will be about. It doesn't include information that is not present in the article and is concise and provides a "hook" that makes the reader want to continue to learn about child health and nutrition in Africa.

Content

Article 1: The articles content is very relevant to the topic of undernutrition in children as it discusses the background of malnutrition, signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and prevention. The information seems to be mainly up to date, however I think it could include more recent information about new treatments that have been identified. Besides that, I think all of the content is relevant and should be included. The article does discuss malnutrition as something that primarily affects historically underrepresented populations through the diseases it discusses and the images that are used. However, it does try to take a worldly perspective and doesn't specifically mention whether one population is more affected than another as it is discussing undernutrition in children as a whole.

Article 2: I think that the articles content is very relevant as it discusses the extent and gravity of child health and nutrition in Africa, deficiency in essential nutrients and micronutrients, a list of preventive interventions and curative interventions, and the main strategies that have been utilized to treat nutrition in Africa. The content appears to be up to date and discusses many newly discovered treatments and strategies. I think that they could have included a brief history of why child health and nutrition is a concern in Africa, but besides that I think that the information presented is effective. This article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

Article 1: I think the article is neutral, it presents all of the information from a very facts-based approach that avoids inserting any bias. I think that the majority of the information does present it from the perspective of undernutrition within children as a whole instead of focusing on particular regions or countries and their experiences with undernutrition. That being said, it does reference specific diseases and external factors that may increase a child's risk of being malnourished. The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader as it is simply stating facts about signs and symptoms of undernutrition, causes of it, etc, therefore there isn't much room for the article to take a stance.

Article 2: Similar to the first article, this one presents all of the information in a very factual way, avoiding the insertion of bias. The article is focused on child health and nutrition within Africa specifically, therefore the entirety of the information is centered around the experience of African children. It primarily presents the information about the continent as a whole and doesn't dive into the specific experiences of any countries. All in all, this is presenting a minority viewpoint about malnutrition and child health and I think the article does a good job at addressing the preventive efforts that can be taken and why these deficiencies are common in the first place. Therefore, the article doesn't persuade one way or another but rather states facts about child health and nutrition in Africa.

Sources and References

Article 1: I think that the sources do present a wide array of information that can and should be covered under the topic of undernutrition. The majority of the sources were published within the 2012-2018 time period, however there are a few outliers on either ends. Therefore, I think that the article could use a little bit of an update with more recent sources and any new information they have gathered about undernutrition in children. I don't see a repeat among any of the authors, showing how there is a wide array of information being broadcasted in the article. I think that all of these sources are really effective as they provide more specific, more detailed information about each of the specific subtopics, all of which are interesting research topics and elaborate on the information within the article. The links that I tried did work!

Article 2: Yes, all of the information shared is backed up by secondary sources, many of which are from the WHO or UNICEF. Each of these sources focus on a more specific aspect of the article and explain it in further detail. The majority of the sources are from 2003-2018, therefore I think it could definitely use an update with more current information and findings. I think that the sources could be written by a more diverse group of authors, though there is a variety of names the WHO and UNICEF are referenced multiple times each. I think that these sources are effective because this topic is rather factual therefore I think these peer reviewed sources are the most effective. The links that I tried did work!

Organization and Writing Quality

Article 1: I think the article is very concise and well-written - though a lot of the information is very factual and may be confusing to some, I think it is presented in a clear and interesting manner. I wasn't able to notice any spelling or grammatical errors. I think that the article is very well organized in a manner that makes sense.

Article 2: I think that the article may be a little confusing to someone reading it who has no experience with topics of malnutrition or health in general. It does provide a lot of facts which are necessary, but I think it sometimes can be a little bit overwhelming to read. I didn't notice any spelling or grammatical errors. I think that the information is presented in an effective way but I also think the article could use a conclusion of some sort towards the end.

Images and Media

Article 1: The article does contain a few images that I think enhance the understanding of the topic such as highlighting what kwashiorkor looks like in a child, how malnutrition is measured in children, etc. I think the images are laid out in a visually appealing way and coincide with the information that is being talked about at that point of the article. I believe they do adhere to the copyright regulations regarding images.

Article 2: The only image within the article is of a malnourished infant. I think that the article could have used additional images to convey some of the topics that were covered. I believe this image does adhere to the copyright regulations regarding images.

Talk Page Discussion

Article 1: On the talk page, a lot of the conversation revolves around the images that were used in the article and whether they are truly effective and ethical to use. The article is part of the WikiProjects for medicine, sociology, sanitation, and dietary supplements. It is rated as C-class. The critical analysis of the images is similar to a conversation we would have in class.

Article 2: On this talk page, the only comment is that someone would like the importance of sanitation to be measured. The article is within the WikiProject for Sanitation and is rated as C-class.

Overall Impressions

Article 1: Overall, I really enjoy this article. I think it provides a great outline of undernutrition in children in a manner that is clear and concise. It goes into details about background and causes without confusing the reader. I think that considering the effectiveness of some of the images used would be important, but besides that I really appreciate this article. It is well thought-out, informative, and very interesting to read.

Article 2: I think that this article could use a bit of work. Though I appreciate the content and how thorough it is, I worry it might be a bit too detailed for someone who doesn't have prior experience or knowledge in this area. Therefore, I think it could be improved by removing some of the facts and explaining the information in a more understandable way. I think the article is very well-developed, maybe even over-developed, contributing to the confusing aspect of it.

(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.)