User:Rianahen/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.

• Nature versus nurture: (Nature versus nurture)
• This is a topic that has always fascinated me, even as a child. The idea is so core to everything we do and I think it's interesting to analyse and compare various phenomena to see how nature and nurture impact them to varying degrees.

Lead

Guiding questions

While there is an introductory sentence at the start of the article, I think it could have done a better job of describing the topic. A structure for what is to follow is not laid out and neither is there any mention of information that is not present in the article. The introduction focuses more on tracing the history of the debate which while well described, seems a little myopic and overtly detailed given that we could delve into it later - a broader introduction would have been more useful.

• 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?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions

The article tends to stray a little bit from the main theme - the various sub topics could've been woven better for a more cohesive flow (the ending also seems a bit abrupt). Some ideas have been discussed in more detailed than they need to be - it's hard to keep track of their relevance. The content could use some updation for the last decade or so and doesn't seem to address topics related to any equity gaps.

• 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?

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

The article has a neutral tone w/o any bias towards a particular position. Some areas of study (although not viewpoints) do seem overrepresented.

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions

It feels like more citations could have been made (and the sources do need updation). A good set of current references though do seem to be credible, peer reviewed, journal articles - doesn't seem to address a diverse spectrum of authors / works though.

• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions

The article is not very concise - while easy to read, it has no coherent flow and the main idea doesn't shine through as one goes through the content. There is not much of a structure and there are no defined concluding thoughts to take away. While the article is broken down into sub topics, they focus more on the history and cover only a few areas of application of this debate.

• 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

Images and Media

Guiding questions

Does poorly on this front - it has a few images but again, they could have been much richer given the potential with this topic and are not laid out in an appealing manner at all. The captions are limited and don't make sense out of context. Not sure how the images do wrt to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

• 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?

Images and media evaluation

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

Not much talk going on for this article except for a comment on how it doesn't do justice to the topic. It is rated C-class and is part of the WikiProjects on Philosophy, Psychology and Sociology.

• 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?

Talk page evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

This article needs work! It does a good job of delving into the history of the debate and how the terms were coined, but doesn't take it much further then that. The later studies are disjointed and don't do much to give a holistic view of the debate and it's latest standing (as well as application across fields). It can be improved with: better outline, focus on various areas where this theme has been applied, various studies that have looked at this, images that convey the ideas, amongst other things. I would asses it thus, as under developed.

• 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

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: Talk:Nature versus nurture#Article needs update