User:Vcymbals16/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.

Epinephrine (medication): Epinephrine (medication)
I chose to evaluate this article primarily because adrenaline (epinephrine) is the hormone that I would like to focus on for the duration of the semester. Adrenaline is a very closely studied hormone with lots of new research being published every year. Furthermore, this article has a relatively large and active group of contributors, a substantial amount of information and citations. Thus, it serves as a fairly good representation of what a well-functioning, yet still improving, article looks like on Wikipedia.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes. Fortunately, an introductory sentence for a broad topic such as this is easy to create.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Overall, yes. The lead has a sentence or two that directly correspond to sections of the article. Only one portion of the lead sticks out as strange, to be discussed below.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- There is one sentence in the lead that references (or at least implies) some potential adverse effects for women that are pregnant or breastfeeding. This sentence has no correlating section in the article, nor is there a corresponding Wikipedia article that readers can turn to for information on the topic. The cited source itself has little to say pregnant or breastfeeding women with regards to epinephrine administration, but a little further investigation reveals that there are more resources that discuss administration to pregnant or breastfeeding women, and some even make recommendations for use. The sentence in the article should either be continued later on with more detailed information, link the reader to another Wikipedia article, or not exist at all.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The length and detail of the lead section is appropriate for the broadness of the topic.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- The content of the article is relevant.
Is the content up-to-date?
- For the most part, yes. There aren't many sources cited that are less than 5-10 years old, but many of the established attributes of epinephrine have been known for years. I feel as though some more up-to-date sources could be obtained, but it is not a critical issue for the article.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- As mentioned previously, the sentence about pregnancy and breastfeeding seems very out of place. I also feel as though a page for a broad topic such as this could use a "See also" section or another way to link readers to articles that handle more specific topics pertaining to medicinal epinephrine.
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?
- The entirety of the article remains neutral except for that one strange sentence in the lead. The last phrase reads, "the benefits to the mother must be taken into account," which in addition to being strangely vague also gives the implication of some sort of moral obligation. That isn't the sort of material needed in an informational article.
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?
- Only the sentenced referenced above. Otherwise no.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes. Nearly every sentence has one or more citations. A couple of citations break the rule and use primary sources, but I think these sources make sense given the context. If there are secondary sources that communicate the same findings, they should be swapped out, however.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes. Sources seem to be of overall good quality and thorough.
Are the sources current?
- Somewhat. Most sources date from the early 2000s to the early 2010s. In many cases, newer sources aren't needed because the findings of those sources are still regarded as true, but finding some newer reviews to swap in there may be beneficial.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- This is a difficult question to answer, and frankly I don't find it altogether relevant for an article such as this. Authors clearly come from a fairly diverse set of backgrounds based on names.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The vast majority of this article is very clear and well-written.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- None that I was able to find.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes. No complaints on this front except for the lack of a "See also" or similar section.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- The first of the two does, it is merely a skeletal structure of epinephrine. The second might or might not. The photo is allegedly the "own work" of a user that uploaded it, but the user's profile no longer exists, so this cannot be verified.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes. Nothing special, but certainly not unattractive.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Users have been discussing merging this page with others, splitting the page up further, adding or removing sections, and so forth. One point of discussion is adding information for cost of the drug.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is a B-Class article. It is a WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology article, deemed of mid-importance.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- We have yet to discuss epinephrine in class. In a more general sense, this article handled the medicinal side of endocrinology, while in class we focus on the biological side.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article is developing and growing.
What are the article's strengths?
- Overall it is a rock-solid concise overview of the hormone as used medicinally. It has the right level of depth.
How can the article be improved?
- Fixing or removing the one problematic sentence in the lead. Including a section that has links to related topics and/or more specific topics about epinephrine.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- It is certainly not underdeveloped or poorly developed, but I also would not call this article complete. The ongoing discussions happening on the Talk page are good, and show promise that the article will mature well as time goes on. As it stands right now, the article is a very good foundation to build on.

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 — ~~~~