User:22ilovecats22/Evaluate an Article
![]() | 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to the topic of cognitive impairment/brain fog from chemo that I will be completing a project on for this class later in the semester. This topic is important because it is educational for those evaluating different options for treatment and taking into consideration the side effects of chemo. My preliminary impression was that the article was helpful and had a variety of information that would be beneficial to readers.
Evaluate the article
The opening section and the signs are symptoms were easy to read and set up the topic well, however I had a difficult time understanding all of the info in the proposed mechanisms section and felt there could have been more information on how patients would describe brain fog themselves, and how this could effect differing populations. I feel that additional content would be beneficial in relation to management of chemo brain and added to the "treatments" section, and specific info on if and how chemo brain differs in from treatments of different types of cancer (as pointed out in the talk page, this was lacking). The tone was neutral and the sources and references were sufficient. There weren't any images and I don't think any would be necessary for this topic. The organization was clear and easy to follow, although I would maybe move the history section up from the bottom of the article and put it after the lead section. The article is rated C-class, and I believe the strengths lie in the in depth descriptions of the mechanisms and research and what exactly causes chemo brain, as well as data on the scientific studies that have been completed on it. I think the article is well developed, but could always be a bit more fleshed out with specifics on impairments and coping mechanisms.