User:Cschmitz253/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: Abdominal cavity
 * I've chosen to evaluate this article because it is a biological concept that I have a some knowledge about, and it is a C-Class article.

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 is short and seemingly concise, but could benefit from a bit more detail and relevance to the rest of the article. The introductory sentence is not quite a full overview of the abdominal cavity, rather it could be used as a description of any one of the cavities within the body. It could be improved by being more specific about what organs are contained within the abdominal cavity and/or its relative location in the body. The lead does not describe the article's major sections, focusing only on the structure of the cavity and neglecting to mention any of the "clinical significance." The lead also mentions the diaphragm, but no description of its significance within the abdominal cavity is mentioned in the "structure" portion. The lead is concise and not overly detailed, but perhaps does not have enough information.

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 is relevant to the topic, yet not complete. There is a large amount of information about the peritoneum and its relevance within the abdominal cavity, but little about clinical or physiological relevance of the abdominal cavity. There is a list of organs within, but no mention of how they are connected structurally or functionally. The article could also benefit from describing in more detail the neurovasculature of the abdominal cavity and its contents. The content is not outdated, but makes no mention of updated information, such as new studies, research, or discoveries about the abdominal cavity itself. It reads more like a definition of the abdominal cavity than a description.

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 the article is balanced and does not seem to project a particular viewpoint or opinion. As I described in my evaluation of the content, comparatively, there is a large amount of information on the peritoneum and on the structure of the cavity in general.

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 references are secondary and tertiary sources, but there are only two of them. The first and most major source of information is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is reliable and thorough. The second source is from two pages of an anatomy textbook. These represent reliable and scholarly information, but do not present a thorough overview of all of the available information about the topic. They also both are over ten years old, published in 2010 and 1994. The links in each of the references work.

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
There are grammatical errors strewn throughout the article--run on sentences, missed commas, etc.--but they do not detract from the content. The article is fairly well organized, with two major sections, structure and clinical significance. Perhaps a function section could be added as well. There are also helpful subsections to each of the two major sections, though as I've stated I believe there are more clinical applications to the abdominal cavity than ascites and inflammation.

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
There are three images in the article that enhance understanding of the location of the abdominal cavity within the body. Two of the images show the location of all body cavities, which is redundant, and I believe that other images could enhance understanding of the lengthy descriptions within the "pertioneum" section. There are no citations listed on the images, but they have not been removed and appear to be images that could be used for public domain. The images are split between the left and right side of the article, which keeps the article readable and keeps the images from being distracted. The captions in the images are incomplete. For example, one image lists multiple numbers and letters identifying body cavities, but only 3 of them are labeled within the caption of the image.

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
This page is a part of WikiProject Anatomy and WikiProject Biology. It is rated as "High-importance" for both of those projects, yet is still C-class. There is no talk on the talk page, except for one comment in 2008 about making a distinction between the abdominal cavity and peritoneal cavity and another in 2015 about there being duplicate abdominal cavity articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's discussion of this topic (within the article, not within the talk page) differs from biology class discussions in that it over-emphasizes structure without connecting it to function.

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
The article's overall status is C-class. The article's great strength is its detailed description of the structure and importance of the peritoneum within the abdominal cavity. (I wonder if this was a part of the "duplicate" article mentioned in the talk page.) The article could be improved to be more relevant to the general population by describing general function and clinical applications of the cavity (since the peritoneum, mesentery, and omenta might not be what a general Wikipedia reader might be searching for). The article is not poorly developed, but merely underdeveloped.

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: