User:Your Cousin Spagooblio/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.

Pulsatile secretion: Pulsatile secretion
I chose to evaluate this article because it has a very interesting title, and it seems short enough that evaluating it will be manageable for me.

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?

The introductory sentence is sufficiently concise and descriptive.
The Lead introduces some of the sections, but not all of them, as Luteinizing Hormone & Follicle Stimulating Hormone are not mentioned or briefly described.
Much of the information included in the lead is not expanded upon in the article, such as how exactly pulsatile secretion is an important part of development or reproduction.
The lead is relatively concise except for the information it introduces which is not described further in the content.

There is some content that appears to not be directly related to the topic, or that is extra, unnecessary or tangential background information, such as the first two sentences in the section labeled "Neuroendocrine Pulsatility" and the last sentence in the section labeled "Luteinizing Hormone & Follicle Stimulating Hormone." Otherwise, the information included seems relevant.
Not all included information is up to date, as there are sources from 7 years ago, 28 years ago, 17 years ago, etc.
Some of the concepts introduced in the lead are missing in the content, as previously mentioned, and some of the tangential information that was also previously mentioned could be cut.

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?

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?

Most facts seem to be backed up by reliable secondary sources, however there seems to be some primary research included as well, and the first paragraph in the Insulin section is not sourced at all.
There are a good amount of sources, but not all of the highest quality.
As previously mentioned, there are a number of sources that are out of date.
There is one link that leads to an error page, but the others all work.

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?

The article reads perfectly well. Each sentence flows well into the next.
There are some grammatical and spelling errors.
The sections of the article may be a bit too specific, and I would recommend more sections with general descriptions of pulsatile secretion as a phenomenon.

There is one image in the article, and it is relatively well-related to the topic.
The image's caption seems to serve its function well enough.
The image does not appear to be breaking any copyright rules.
The image appears to be cropped strangely, and it kind of looks like it was hastily made in Google Draw, but its placement in the article does not interfere with flow.

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?

There do not appear to be any conversations going on behind the scenes for this article.
The article is rated as a stub and of low importance. It is part of WikiProject Medicine.
We have not yet talked about this topic in class, so I am not sure how different it would be.

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, I would call the article somewhat effective. It introduces the topic and gives some noteworthy examples, but it does not delve very deeply into the details and mechanisms of the main concept it introduces.
The strengths of the article are that it is mostly concise and easy to read.
The article can be improved with some more general detail and trimming of tangential information.
I would assess the article to be substantially underdeveloped.

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 — ~~~~