User:Owen.patrick4/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Ben Barres
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- It seemed like an interesting page as there is both neuroscience topics, as well as topics relevant today regarding trans right issues and sexism.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
The introductory sentence includes Ben's studies, achievements and important transitions in his life. The Lead article does briefly describe the articles major sections. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article, it is restated further in the article. The Lead is concise.
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The Lead was overall done well, it was clearly and concisely written provided relevant information immediately within the Lead.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article's content is relevant to the topic of Ben Barres and Neuroscience. The content is up-to-date with citations as soon as 2018 with the death of Ben in 2017. All information appears to be there and should be there.
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is clear, up to date, and relevant to the article.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article appears to be written from a neutral standpoint and if there is any biases, coming from direct quotes from Ben Barres, the subject of article. No biases are clear in the writing of the article. The article provides accurate information without providing bias and misrepresentation.
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article does not contain biases and the article itself and the information within the article is represented well.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
Link 7 did not work, providing 2 citations within the article that lead to a dead source. Also a few of the sections within the article provide information without any citation.
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The citations need updating and further information needs to be found for some sections.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article is easy to read and digest. The article contains no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is clearly broken down into sections that makes it well-organized.
- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is written clearly, free of errors, and well-organized.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article contains a single image of Ben Barres. More photos could have been beneficial. The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]More images are needed, but the one image follows Wikipedia's guidelines.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
Not many talking points have been added. Most of the concerns on the talk page regarded citations, with one correcting Ben's age with a citation. The article is related to 3 different WikiProjects (Biography / Science and Acadamia, LGBT Studies / Person, and California / San Francisco Bay Area). The talk page discusses exactly how we talked about in class, especially with one of the talking about how they will be editing it for class.
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Respectful, informative, and with the bettering of the article in mind.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article was overall a C-Rated page. The articles does a good job at providing information about Ben Barres. The article needs updated citations. The article is well developed.
- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]This article is rated as a C page and is good at providing information regarding the topic. However, citations need updating and improving.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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 — ~~~~
- Link to feedback:
— ~~~~