User:Abbysiebs/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: Blood plasma
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have first-hand experience working in a blood plasma center as well as donating plasma. This topic is still a big mystery to the general public despite the process being developed in the 1950s. Donors and recipients alike could benefit from learning about the donation process.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, it's not very clear and has no allusion to the donating process.
 * 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? Overly detailed-- too many random numbers and percentages for someone who isn't looking at it scientifically.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Partially.
 * Is the content up-to-date? NO
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Lots of missing content-- such as the actual origin of blood plasma donations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Mostly just out of date.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Way too much information about the UK/Great Britain
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Nope. It would be good to have more up-to-date information (current plasma centers) as well as an accurate and more thorough history.
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No, it's very heavy and hard to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Grammatical, yes (hyphens). Spelling, not that I've noticed so far.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Very few sections that are oddly specific and rather irrelevant.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I would add images of the plasma bottles, plasmapherisis machine, venipuncture site, and saline
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

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: