User:PharmJ 13/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)
- Link: Post-mortem chemistry
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- The article above has been chosen to be evaluated given its interesting topic and relevance to Alzheimer's Disease research.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, this article includes a couple of introductory sentences which adequately describes the article's topic.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The article's Lead includes a few sentences with the article's main sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The Lead of this page does not specify that this article will only talk about post-mortem chemistry in humans, which I think should be added. However, I am not sure how pressing that detail may be.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The Lead is short and concise. It highlights the definition of post-mortem chemistry and comments on the main analyses used in the forensic field to determine what the patient or victim died of and/or highlight any other possible conditions the person was suffering from.

Overall, the lead comments on the important aspects that will be talked about further in the article.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes, the content is up to date (last edit was on March 11, 2020).
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Citation of where the images come from is missing.
- Information regarding the history of Post-mortem chemistry may be added.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- The page does not address post-mortem chemistry cases in underrepresented populations.

Is the article neutral?
- The article has a neutral and balanced tone. It does not favor one particular method of biochemical analysis, but merely explains the purpose behind why one in the post-mortem chemistry track would look into a particular body fluid or tissue analysis.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- I did not identify any claim that is biased to toward a position.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Overall, the article did not seem to give off a particular view point, but rather it was based on facts found in the referenced articles.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any position.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- All facts in the article are backed up by reliable sources such as peer reviewed journals and creditable institutions such as the National Institute of Health (NIH).
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- The article does not depict a clear representation of the available literature on the topic. The reasoning behind this is due to the fact that there are only 9 sources listed for such a complex topic.
Are the sources current? (A parameter of what can be considered current would be helpful).
- The sources are current from 2011 and onward.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes, the sources are written by diverse ethnicities and do include historically marginalized individuals.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- The links in this article work, except for link #9. For link #9 one has to copy and paste the doi link.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, this article is concise, clear and easy to follow.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I did not find any spelling nor grammatical errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- The article is well organized.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The article includes only one image of the eye, and although it does help understand one of the subtopics of the article it would be helpful if this work contained more diagrams to portray the different post-mortem analysis procedures.
Are images well-captioned?
- The only image presented in this article does provide a brief description of the image but it does not contain a link as to where the image is found.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- The images presented in this Wikipedia page does not adhere to the copyright regulations.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- The image is placed next to its respective sub-topic and thus it is laid out in an appealing way.

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?

What is the article's overall status?
- The article's overall status is of stub-class and it is classified as an High importance project.

What are the article's strengths?
- Some of the article's strengths include the article being unbiased, and providing straightforward and easy to read facts. In addition, the article has an overall good structural organization.
How can the article be improved?
- More primary literature could be added to enhance the content of the article.
- Diagrams or pictures portraying the procedure and/ or purpose of the analyses described in the article could also be added.
- A citation must be added for the only image in the article.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is still not fully developed. More information can be added pertaining to the past and current advancement in the post-mortem chemistry field. As well as more pictures or diagrams that can further provide an explanation to how these forensic analyses work. Current investigations (i.e later than 2018) should be accounted and incorporated to maintain the page up to date.

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 — ~~~~