User:Kmr0077/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: Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea
I chose to evaluate this article because I am very interested in the disorder functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. I think this disease is very interesting because there are many young females that unfortunately have this disease, without them understanding the long term negative effects that this can have on their overall health!

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? The lead is fairly concise and easy to comprehend

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? Yes- the majority of the references used for content are from articles within 5-10 years.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I don't think so. I think the article is well focused on the main points of the disease, primarily on the presentation, risk factors, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and potential management/treatment of the disorder.
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? No
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No- the article seems to be primarily informational

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, I think so
Are the sources current? Yes, the majority of the sources are within 5-10 years. However, there are a couple of sources from the 2000's and one source from 1998.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? For the most part, however, there are 3 different articles that have recurring authors (K.K. Miller and E.A. Lawson).
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? No
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I felt that the article was broken down well and very easy to navigate

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, this article does not have any images
Are images well-captioned? N/A- no images
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A- no images
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A- no images

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There aren't many conversations going on behind the scenes on the talk page. There is only one entry from 2018 from a class of medical students explaining what they are aiming to improve on this article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated C-Class and low importance and yes, it is a part of WikiProject Medicine
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not discussed this topic in class

What is the article's overall status? I am unsure if this is correct, but I can't find anywhere that states what the overall status is. However, the article is rated a c-class article
What are the article's strengths? I think one of the article's main strengths is that it has a very clear content section. It explains the presentation, risk factors, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatments of the disease in a very concise manner. It has appropriate labeled headings and is very easy to find information you are looking for. I also think another strength of this article is that it is unbiased and uses information from many different reliable sources.
How can the article be improved? There are no diagrams or images in this article, which I think would help with the understanding of some of the content. For example, the pathophysiology of functional hypothalamic amenorrhea is rather complex and I think that having an image to further explain the different pathways might help with further understanding.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that this article is well developed. There is a ton of good, useful, reliable information and I do not feel as though it is underdeveloped/poorly 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 — ~~~~