User:Katiehayman/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]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because it was a stub page with mid-importance to the Emergency Medicine/EMS task force, and there is very little information currently in the page.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
[edit]The lead section is the only section currently present. It does a good job of presenting relevant information, however may become more specific as more information is added to the rest of the page.
Content
[edit]This is a stub page with very little content. The content is up to date, but not very detailed or specific.
Tone and Balance
[edit]This article is balanced and does not have bias.
Sources and References
[edit]The article only has 3 sources, the most recent being from 2011, the other two from 2006. The sources are appropriate articles, but are outdated and minimal.
Organization and writing quality
[edit]The writing quality is fine. The lead section has an intuitive flow through pathogenesis and management, however there are no other sections to organize the information.
Images and Media
[edit]There is only one image in the article. It appears to be properly cited and meets wikipedia guidelines. It does not add much to the content of the article.
Talk page discussion
[edit]There is no discussion on the talk page. This article is part of the WikiProject Medicine and the EM/EMS task force. It is of Mid importance and is currently a stub page.
Overall impressions
[edit]There is a start to this topic in the lead section, however there is a lot more information that can be added. There are minimal citations and media. This topic is currently underdeveloped. Sections should be added to expand on the contributing factors, signs and symptoms, treatment, and prognosis.