User:Ashleystrenko/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: Glia
 * I chose this article because I was not very familiar with glial cells and I wanted the opportunity to learn something new.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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
The Lead for this article was well written. The first sentence clearly states what glia is, the various other names for glia, and where these cells are found in the body. The Lead then goes on to describe various types of glial cells and the four main functions of glia. The types and functions of glia are discussed in more detail further in the article. The Lead only includes information that is explained in greater detail later in the article. The Lead is concise and provides the right amount of details about the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content in this article is mostly good. The article discusses the types, development, function, clinical importance, and history of glia. The content is up-to-date and I can see by the history tab that it was edited as recently as August 2, 2019. In the section titled, "Capacity to divide", the author is unclear and contradictory about division of glial cells. The author does state that the division process of glia is something that is still being studied and is not yet completely understood, so perhaps this is the reason for the confusion.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 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
The tone of this article is neutral. I did not find any heavily biased statements or any persuasive statements. I felt that the viewpoints got the amount of representation that they deserved for their importance. The article is educational and does a good job at remaining neutral throughout.

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?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article is well-cited. All facts are cited and some are cited with multiple sources, when appropriate. The article is thorough because at times there are multiple sources backing up a single statement. There were 42 total references cited throughout the article and the majority of them are relatively recent (within the past 10 years). There are some slightly outdated sources from the 1980's and 1990's, but the information from these sources might be unchanged and still valuable. The links I clicked on are functional.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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
This article was well-written. The information was presented in a way that someone without a scientific background could still understand the article. For the most part, the article was clear and concise. Like I previously mentioned, the only section that was slightly unclear was the one titled "Capacity to divide". The organization of this article is excellent because it presents the information in a way that is interesting and easy to follow. All the major points about glia were covered in detailed sections. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors while I was reading this article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * 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
The article includes several images of glial cells that can aid in understanding the structure and function of the cells. The captions are well-written and concisely explain what is being shown. All images are cited and adhere to the copyright regulations. The images are presented well and bring a little excitement to the article.

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?

Talk page evaluation
There are not any recent conversations on the talk page regarding this article. However, I was able to read some conversations from years ago that I found interesting. They discussed the section titled "Capacity to divide" and talked about how it was contradictory. But, the section wasn't changed because the people discussing the issue did not use good resources. In multiple places, the source that is referenced is a college class that the person has taken and retained and relayed the information.

This article is part of 4 WikiProjects, including Physiology, Neuroscience, Anatomy, and Molecular and Cell Biology. The article is rated B-class with mid-importance in all WikiProjects except Neuroscience, in which this article is rated top-importance.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think this was a well-written article. The strongest point in this article is the section that discusses the types of glia. In this section, the information is laid out in an easy-to-follow chart that makes it easy to understand. The chart has the location of the glial cell (Central Nervous System or Peripheral Nervous System), the name of the specific type, and a detailed description of the type and its function. I do think the article could be improved upon in the "Capacity to divide" section. This section needs to be reworded and needs better sources that could lessen the confusion.

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: