User:Cellbiostudent15/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Cellbiostudent15 evaluation
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Cell Physiology (Cell physiology)
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article about cell physiology because cell physiology is an integral aspect to understanding the working mechanisms and functions of human cellular biology.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that explains the concise definition of the term Cell Physiology that is an easy to understand and easy to read format. This allows for a simple introduction to the article's material even for readers that may not otherwise understand.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief legend that explains the different sections of the articles materials.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead is brief and is simply an overall explanation of how the article is organized.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is light, and could provide more details to create an easier, quicker method of overall including information to the reader.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The articles content thoroughly invests into the curriculum of the topic on a basic but easily explained level. This allows for a brief but detailed explanation for readers to get information about the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content does not appear to be up to date. It appears that the latest date that the article was about a month ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not appear to be content that is not relevant to the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not address historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral because it does not represent a certain stance, rather, it explains the educational stance of a scientific topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, in general this is a neutral article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Because the article is neutral about a curriculum topic, no there are no over or under represented topics.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article remains neutral.

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?
 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is easy to read. It keeps the information short and to the point.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There does not appear to have any errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The articles is well organized and has excerpts that are easily broken down to be able to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes relevant graphs and diagrams to make the topic easier to understand.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are not well captioned and the explanations are not easy to read. The article could improve in this aspect.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It appears the images properly adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are side by side to the proper information.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * A lot of the discussions behind the scenes seem to agree the article is clear and concise but not very in depth and could improve in that aspect.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article does not appear to be a part of a wikiproject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The wikipedia explains cell physiology in a definitive way that does not go very in depth but gives a basic overview to any reader who does not otherwise understand the topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is rated as techinically difficult for readers to understand.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is organized and has clear and concise imagery.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More in depth conversations about the articles content could improve the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say the article is under 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: