User:In Vita Veritas/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link) Adrenaline
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: As this was done for a class assignment I wanted to choose a hormone I was somewhat familiar with already. Adrenaline fit this criteria because I already had basic knowledge of its structure and some functions from other biology courses

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise detailing the uses of adrenaline and where it’s produced without extraneous details that I was able to determine.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I was able to determine from reading it.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Is the article neutral? Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I can tell
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
Are the sources current? The most recent sources mentioned in the article are from within the last 5 years
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Hard to say but given how some of the sources are from pre 1950 this is doubtful
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but has one extraneous section about adrenaline junkies

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only pictures of the chemical formula
Are images well-captioned? Titled yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are ok but since it’s chemical structures and pathways it’s hard to make it visually appealing.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is talk of merging this article with an article about epinephrine as a medication.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes in four separate categories it’s rated b class with low to mid importance
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven’t covered this yet in class

What is the article's overall status? Seems up to date.
What are the article's strengths? Concise
How can the article be improved? Remove adrenaline junkie segment since while sharing the same name it doesn’t add to the subject
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?well developed

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~