 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
I chose this article because I have previously encountered this rare pathology in clinical practice. There is still question of to how the pathology arises, and I noticed the current wikipedia page is very short and does not include much about possible causes, diagnostic tools, or treatment options. My first impression was that the page had basic information with limited references.
The lead section includes an introductory sentence that is clear, but it lacks a description of the major sections. There is only one section currently in this short Wikipedia article. Ways where it can be improved is expanding on ideas in the lead article and breaking down the article into further sections. It is concise, but maybe lacking detail.
The article content is relevant to the topic, but all the information is presented in the lead section. There are no breakdown sections to expand on certain aspect it talks about including diagnosis and the associated conditions. The information may not be the most up to date, as many of the sources are approaching 10 years old. The content that is missing may include treatment options or the surgical approach to removing the neoplasm. There isn't any addressing of equity gaps or historically underrepresented topics.
The article is neutral and emphasizes the general physician desire to preserve the testicle and avoid orchiectomy when possible. It may be beneficial to add to the article to describe when orchiectomy may in fact be necessary to balance the description of possible outcomes. There are not claims that seem biased or any particular persuasions.
Since most of the published work on Splenogonadal fusion is from case reports, the sources are widely from medical journals including Urology or pediatric radiology. It reflects the broadness of case reports, but is lacking in current sources that may include more recent information on the pathology. There are a wide variety of authors and the sources range from different journals. There may be better sources available that are more up-to-date. The links included in the references do appear to be functional.
The article is overall well-written. It Is very concise, but as mentioned above, may be overly concise. I did not identify any grammatical or spelling errors. The article largely lacks organization and is not broken into sections to reflect the major points of the topics. I propose adding additional sections that may include: Etiology, epidemiology, presentation, diagnosis, and treatment.
- There is only one image included that is well captioned. It adheres to copyright regulations and includes its sources from an article published in the Journal of Urology. It is well-captioned. Different views of the image may increase the visual appeal and understanding of its presentation.
There was issue with a fact being tagged as dubious that was brought up in 2015. Though, there were no further replies about why the dubious tag was placed on a sentence of the article.
- The article is rated as start-class on the quality scale and as low importance. It has a related page, accessory spleens, which is rated as mid-importance. The strengths of the article includes a basic introduction that can be learned from the article within minute, but it can be improved by expanding on many of the topics in the introduction paragraph. It can also be improved by providing the link between the accessory spleen page. I think the page is underdeveloped overall.
| Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
I chose this article because I have previously encountered this rare pathology in clinical practice. There is still question of to how the pathology arises, and I noticed the current wikipedia page is very short and does not include much about possible causes, diagnostic tools, or treatment options. My first impression was that the page had basic information with limited references.
The lead section includes an introductory sentence that is clear, but it lacks a description of the major sections. There is only one section currently in this short Wikipedia article. Ways where it can be improved is expanding on ideas in the lead article and breaking down the article into further sections. It is concise, but maybe lacking detail.
The article content is relevant to the topic, but all the information is presented in the lead section. There are no breakdown sections to expand on certain aspect it talks about including diagnosis and the associated conditions. The information may not be the most up to date, as many of the sources are approaching 10 years old. The content that is missing may include treatment options or the surgical approach to removing the neoplasm. There isn't any addressing of equity gaps or historically underrepresented topics.
The article is neutral and emphasizes the general physician desire to preserve the testicle and avoid orchiectomy when possible. It may be beneficial to add to the article to describe when orchiectomy may in fact be necessary to balance the description of possible outcomes. There are not claims that seem biased or any particular persuasions.
Since most of the published work on Splenogonadal fusion is from case reports, the sources are widely from medical journals including Urology or pediatric radiology. It reflects the broadness of case reports, but is lacking in current sources that may include more recent information on the pathology. There are a wide variety of authors and the sources range from different journals. There may be better sources available that are more up-to-date. The links included in the references do appear to be functional.
The article is overall well-written. It Is very concise, but as mentioned above, may be overly concise. I did not identify any grammatical or spelling errors. The article largely lacks organization and is not broken into sections to reflect the major points of the topics. I propose adding additional sections that may include: Etiology, epidemiology, presentation, diagnosis, and treatment.
- There is only one image included that is well captioned. It adheres to copyright regulations and includes its sources from an article published in the Journal of Urology. It is well-captioned. Different views of the image may increase the visual appeal and understanding of its presentation.
There was issue with a fact being tagged as dubious that was brought up in 2015. Though, there were no further replies about why the dubious tag was placed on a sentence of the article.
- The article is rated as start-class on the quality scale and as low importance. It has a related page, accessory spleens, which is rated as mid-importance. The strengths of the article includes a basic introduction that can be learned from the article within minute, but it can be improved by expanding on many of the topics in the introduction paragraph. It can also be improved by providing the link between the accessory spleen page. I think the page is underdeveloped overall.