User:Ryanzisk26/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?[edit]

Hook effect

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

I wanted to look at something related to microbiology and the immune system, and the idea of the hook effect stood out when I was browsing articles. Once I looked at the article, I realized that it was relatively short, meaning it was most likely missing some information and would be a good article to evaluate so that I know what I shouldn't do for my own wiki project.

Evaluate the article[edit]

Lead Section - I thought that the lead section of the article was very informative and contained all of the elements outlined above. There was a clear introductory sentence and it went on to briefly describe the subject of the rest of the articles. If I had one suggestion, it would be to simplify some of the information a little bit more, because the description of what was going to come was a bit convoluted, so the actual descriptions themselves were basically repetitions.
Content - I feel that all of the content in the article was relevant, but it was a bit outdated. Although the most recent edit was from 2022, the most recent reference article was from 2012, which is 10 years old. I don't think that the article deals with one of the equity gaps, but given that it is explaining a phenomenon, I don't think it should have to.
Tone and Balance - I feel like the tone and balance in this article was perfect. All of the article was neutral, and there were no instances where I thought one view was overrepresented and one was underrepresented. If I was being really nit-picky, then I would say that they kept explaining instances of the Hook Effect, but not acknowledging that the theory could be wrong.
Sources and References - There are a multitude of references in the article, although outdated. Regardless, all of them come from credible sources. However, there are some instances where sentences were marked with "citation needed" which needs to be filled in.
Organization and Writing Quality - I believe that this article was well-written. Everything is broken up and there were no grammatical errors that I caught.
Images and Media - I felt that all of the images in the article were relevant to the subject matter and elevated the article as a whole. All images are cited and well-captioned too, adhering to Wikipedia's copyright policies.
Talk Page Discussion - There isn't much in the talk page, but it was proposed on 9/4/2022 to move this article to be under the name of Prozone Effect, which is a more common term for the Hook Effect.
Overall Impressions - I thought that the article was relatively strong, they just need to improve on the citations and even add more information about it. I don't know much about the Hook Effect, but there was only a little bit of information in the article, so more can definitely be added.