User:TanaeTaylor/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.

• Name of article: (link) Falls in older adults
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • To analyze statistics regarding falls in older adults with hopes to better understand the research and reality .

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Yes, however, it is disorganized

Lead evaluation

The lead of this article gives widespread information regarding falls in older adults. It does not flow seamlessly. Instead, it seemingly jumps from topic-to-topic in regards to the summary of information given. Consequentially, it made the lead a little hard to follow and understand.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Yes
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No

Content evaluation

The content looks as though it outlines the article well. It shows pertinent topics related to the nature of the article excluding history; I don't see how that would tie in to the article with relevance

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• 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

Tone and balance evaluation

The article has an informative tone throughout. It's very balanced which allows it to flow well. Each section of information is relatively "even" which makes it easy to read.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The information in this article is backed by reliable sources such as ".gov" websites and pages. You can tell that information from these articles came from the sources. Moreover, all of the sources are within the 21st century which speaks to the fact that the research is recent and can be used to evaluate falls in older adults today.

Organization

Guiding questions

• 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?

Organization evaluation

Besides the lead, the article is well-written and concise. I did not see any grammar or spelling errors and the sections were easy to follow. Since each section was titled, I knew what information to expect following the title; this was true throughout the article.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• 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?

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• 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

Guiding questions

• 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 evaluation

The five changes I think should be made are as follows.

1.     It needs organization; the disorganized tone lead to confusion

2.     The concluding sentence should have seamlessly lead to the contents of the article. This would have allowed for a better flow.

3.     Information in the lead should have matched or been similar to the article to give the reader a preview of the information to follow.

4.     I would completely omit the history section. It's just not needed. It adds no value o the article at all.

5.     The Epidemiology seems to just reiterate the facts of the article. It should be omitted as well.

Optional activity

• 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 — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: