User:CaitlynOwen/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Bleb (cell biology)
 * Bleb (cell biology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I wanted to evaluate an article having to do with Cell Biology that was marked as S class.

Lead[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it gives a concise yet informative definition of a Bleb.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead introduces characteristics of Blebs that are expanded on in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything in the Lead is touched on again later on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise but still informative.

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the page has been updated multiple times within the last month.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article should add details about how blebs respond to stress and it's applications in cancer research.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, only facts and information regarding blebs are included.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, every fact is backed up by a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is a very large variety of sources included.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is easy to read even by someone with limited scientific knowledge.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The article is split up into the major sections and then those sections are further split into subsections.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are two images but the article would benefit from more.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page has not been active in a few years. Some edits that were discussed included making the Lead section more legible by non science people, expanding the section on the relationship between blebbing and cell motility and cytokinesis, and adding additional info on factors driving bleb formation.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of multiple class assignments
 * WikiProject Molecular Biology
 * Start-class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article goes much more in depth into the topic than we do in class.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's overall status is a start class article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Goes in depth into the formation and functions of blebs. Also information flows smoothly and is organized well.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could benefit from more pictures supporting the information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Well-developed