User:KMorales34/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Nasopharyngeal Airway

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Frankly, I struggled to choose an article. I looked for something that I knew quite a lot about that didn't have much Information in the article. I chose Nasopharyngeal Airways because I am an EMT and I deal with these apparatus' quite often. My initial impression was that there were places where I felt more information could be added for someone who has no idea what this device is.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Content I felt like the context was lacking a little bit. For someone who doesn't know what the device is, they're most likely going to come here to learn about it. I added that it was not something you stick into your nose and can breathe. It extends into your posterior pharynx which is your upper airway and that is why it is a device that aids with breathing. I also added a detail that I felt was very important and that is contraindications. Although the article already had a section labeled contraindications, the writers failed to list any. Properly using a device like this can be the difference between life and death. I listed several instances where you absolutely should not use an NPA device. I also cited where the information could be read more in depth.

Tone and balance wasn't necessarily an issue considering there isn't really any side to pick. Its simply describing a device. The tone is very neutral and informative.

Sources and References The sources and references were excellent. They even included a textbook that I am familiar with written by many emergency care professionals like doctors, paramedics and emts.

Images and Media I do feel like a picture displaying the different sizes of NPAs can be put up but I do not own any rights to a picture like that and do not want to face copyright infringement

Talk Page Discussions There were no discussions on this article in the talk page although I did notify whomever it concerns that I would like to change some sentences adding more detail and why.

Overall Impressions I do feel like it could be improved a little more with more research and I could most likely get longer. I don't think much more needs to be added. Minor additions would make this a very informative article. The article could be more detailed in regards to NPA here and there and limit the information regarding other airway adjuncts such as OPAs.