User:Yostrerov/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: Neuroendocrinology
• Because it is closely related to the course and involves the neurological aspect of the endocrine system which I am interested in learning more about.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content up-to-date? More or less but the sources seem a bit old, could use to be updated
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content related to the pituitary gland seems a bit misplaced, or maybe needs to be described better. It tells us about what the pituitary gland is rather than explaining what it has to do with the interaction of the neurological and immunological systems.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the article neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Saying things like the neuroendocrinology systems affects all aspects of reproduction seems like sort of seems like a blanket statement
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Pretty much all them, this article seems very underdeveloped and vague
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of them
• Are the sources current? Outdated
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, most of them do

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read but I feel like it doesnt have much depth
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I caught
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but again I feel like they just threw the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland information in there, and did not tie it in very well with the rest. I am glad to see a history and modern scope section at least.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
• Are images well-captioned? N/a
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/a
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/a

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions:

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Theres hardly any conversation at all, it seems like this article is being ignored and not updated
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Start-class, unimportant
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class we may go into depth about how the two systems work together and effect each other

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• What is the article's overall status? Needs major improvements
• What are the article's strengths? I would say, its potential is its greatest strength. With proper editing and attention this can be a great article
• How can the article be improved? adding more scientific information in an easy to read manner to further explain this interaction of systems
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed

Optional activity

• 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: Talk:Neuroendocrinology