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

(Provide a link to the article here.)

I am evaluating the article titled Vitamin K deficiency bleeding.

Link: Vitamin K deficiency bleeding

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

I chose this article because I was interested in discussing this topic as a subsection in the article I am editing. This article talks about the importance of vitamin K injections for newborns to help prevent Vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). It touches on the signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of the problem which provide a quick summary of what VKDB really is.Preliminary Impression of the article:

No dialog in the talk page. It is classified by Wikipedia as a start-class article and would benefit from additional editing. Even though the article is start-class, it gives an overall idea of what VKDB is and what can be done in order to prevent it in newborns. The headings provide easy navigation of the page and makes finding the information very easy.

(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.)

Lead Section:

• Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the introductory sentence gives the reader an overall idea of what VKDB.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does discuss the articles major sections.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
  • No, it does not.
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead can be reduced slightly. Some of the information can be discussed in the body of the article and this can help make the lead section look more concise.

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?
  • Yes
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Most of the references used in this article are more than 5 years old. Content should be edited with new references to have a more up-to-date presentation of the topic.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The content presented in the article belongs.

Tone and Balance:

• Is the article neutral?
  • Yes
• 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?
  • No, this article presents information about VKDB and does not attempt to persuade the readers to take any actions. It talks about the importance of vitamin K injects in newborns, but does so from a neutral stand point.

Sources and References:

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • No, in the body of the section labeled Causes, there is a sentence by the editor that is not cited with a reference. It is unknown where the idea the editor was trying to present is pulled from.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • There are 8 references used in this article and some sections only use one reference. I believe more reference can be found on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Most of the references used are over 5 years old, some even being from the 90s.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • One requires login information, another requires purchasing the book, and another can not be found when using the link provided. One of the guidelines used was replaced by the original publisher. Overall, most of the links provided are inaccessible.

Organization and Writing Quality:

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The article is well-written. It is easy to read and provides information that is easy to find and understand.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes

Images and Media:

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes. It provides a picture of the structure of vitamin K and also a table classifying the onset of VKDB.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

Talk Page Discussion:

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • No discussions currently on the talk page.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This article is part of WikiProject Medicine.

Overall Impressions:

• What is the article's overall status?
  • It is in the beginning stages and can benefit from additional editing with newer references.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The article is easy to understand and provides the information in a visually pleasing manner. The work is concise and presents the major ideas about the topic.
• How can the article be improved?
  • I would recommend adding more references in each section because it can help improve ones understanding of the topic. More information from different sources can also increase the detail presented in each section. I would also recommend using newer references and those that are accessible by the reader so they can look up the source and read more if they want to. The lead section can also be edited to make it more concise.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • This article is in the beginning stages so it is underdeveloped and can use more editing.