User:EmeraldJ/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Electronic cigarette#Youth
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose to evaluate this article in hopes of being able to continue using the topic that I've been using this semester for my social problem.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, Explains the process of vaping and what is very clearly.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- There is a content page that acts an index to the separate info, but there are no descriptions of the different categories initially. One has to click and read the sub-category to understand it's content.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No everything addressed in the lead is explained to some greater effect in their respected sub-categories.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I believe that it may have been a bit over-detailed but not noticeably so. I may have just not included the exact chemical make-up in the intro since it could be explained later.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, draws on multiple sources ranging from sources from a decade ago to more recently.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I don't believe so. In fact I learned some things that I didn't even know.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, no sides seem to be taken and all facts are stated objectively.
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. the message seems to be specifically to inform.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, references are abundant in this article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, from the ones I looked at, the sources seem to be academic articles or peer-reviewed articles.
Are the sources current?
- mixed. Some from up to 15 years ago and some from this year.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- I think so
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No, I don't believe so
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Some images help while some seem to be just in thrown in
Are images well-captioned?
- yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, they seem to add to the info and don't distract or misguide the reader.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- edit warring as wiki puts it seems to be the big thing in the talk page.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Actually got nominated to be a Natural Sciences good article and only failed to earn it because of the edit warring in the talk section.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- I don't think the information or message differs particularly, if anything the information presented feels a bit more neutral then in our in class discussion because the article lacks affect.

What is the article's overall status?
- I'm not sure I tried to find out, but I am unclear where to look to find this info.
What are the article's strengths?
- The amount of information and how it is address in such a neutral way was refreshing and enjoyable.
How can the article be improved?
- New data about vaping is coming out constantly so as long as the article stays up to date, that should be all the improvement it needs.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I would say it's well-developed and in it's final stages. But it's hard to say, since it's an ever expanding topic.

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 — ~~~~