 | 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. |
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because I am interested in the field of Gastroenterology and also because this is such a vast topic with very little information. the landing page of this article does not even define with Anorectal Disorders are, which to the general population may not be self explanatory and very helpful. I also would like to expand further on these conditions and make this page more resourceful in a single location.
(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:
The content in article is very minimal, especially for a topic is very vast. It starts off with the lead paragraph, giving some examples of the types of disorders and then moving onto describing generic symptoms and signs, followed by diagnosis and then treatment. Personally, to me this feels incomplete as it would be much more helpful to possibly have a table in here with the various condition and then divide up the diagnosis and treatment based on those, as opposed to having it clumped into one category.
Tone and Balance:
The article is neutral and does not have any heavy biases. This article also does not contain viewpoints that are overrepresented/underrepresented. This article also does not attempt to persuade the reader in a position or the other.
Sources and References:
Not all the facts in the article are backed by research. For example, it is listened in the article that you can treat these with OTC medications to more invasive surgical procedures but does not describe how. The sources contained in the page are from 2003-2012, so well over 10 years ago. Also, there are only 4 sources total on this page.
Organization and Writing Quality:
This article has a lot of room for improvement. The lead paragraph is concise but also need more descriptors. The article does not have any spelling errors that I noticed and is overall organized in a very basic way and needs further expansion.
Images and Media:
There are no image or media attached to this article.
Talk Page Discussion:
There are no talk page discussion going on with this page.
Overall impressions:
This article provides a good baseline and starting point for this topic; however this topic is very vast and needs further expansion into the various categories. The strength of this page is that is a high importance article as a lot of people suffer from this condition at some point in their time and would truly benefit from the information being location in one area in an organized fashion. I will improve this article by first describing what the umbrella term stands for, and the describing the common conditions and how they can be diagnosed and treatment. I will also be adding further references from more recent years.
| 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. |
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because I am interested in the field of Gastroenterology and also because this is such a vast topic with very little information. the landing page of this article does not even define with Anorectal Disorders are, which to the general population may not be self explanatory and very helpful. I also would like to expand further on these conditions and make this page more resourceful in a single location.
(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:
The content in article is very minimal, especially for a topic is very vast. It starts off with the lead paragraph, giving some examples of the types of disorders and then moving onto describing generic symptoms and signs, followed by diagnosis and then treatment. Personally, to me this feels incomplete as it would be much more helpful to possibly have a table in here with the various condition and then divide up the diagnosis and treatment based on those, as opposed to having it clumped into one category.
Tone and Balance:
The article is neutral and does not have any heavy biases. This article also does not contain viewpoints that are overrepresented/underrepresented. This article also does not attempt to persuade the reader in a position or the other.
Sources and References:
Not all the facts in the article are backed by research. For example, it is listened in the article that you can treat these with OTC medications to more invasive surgical procedures but does not describe how. The sources contained in the page are from 2003-2012, so well over 10 years ago. Also, there are only 4 sources total on this page.
Organization and Writing Quality:
This article has a lot of room for improvement. The lead paragraph is concise but also need more descriptors. The article does not have any spelling errors that I noticed and is overall organized in a very basic way and needs further expansion.
Images and Media:
There are no image or media attached to this article.
Talk Page Discussion:
There are no talk page discussion going on with this page.
Overall impressions:
This article provides a good baseline and starting point for this topic; however this topic is very vast and needs further expansion into the various categories. The strength of this page is that is a high importance article as a lot of people suffer from this condition at some point in their time and would truly benefit from the information being location in one area in an organized fashion. I will improve this article by first describing what the umbrella term stands for, and the describing the common conditions and how they can be diagnosed and treatment. I will also be adding further references from more recent years.