User:Cthulhu3/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.


 * Droplet-based microfluidics: (link)
 * I want to add to it for my class assignment

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation
The article has a short, yet informative lead than gives an overview of what is to come. All of the major words in the lead were subsections of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * As of December 2019, yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Perhaps, but I don't know enough about the topic yet.

Content evaluation
The content is very information dense and lengthy. There are lots of different sections and many different authors for the page, which indicates that this has been an article that has been heavily worked on. The last edit was made on December or 2019, so it seems that the article is up to date and more information is being posted consistently.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is not opinionated, and various authors seem to solely be interested in sharing information without spinning the content to persuade. However, everyone has personal bias so some things that can result from this would be apparent in the selection of the information that was presented over other data that the authors chose not to include. While not malicious, this was a concious intent and it could make the article less reliable if the majority of the authors have the same background and beliefs.

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 links work and they all lead to scientific journals that require university credential to axis, which gives them some notability for being backed by major institutions. The sources mainly come from the mid 2000s to today and they often corroborate each other.

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
Easy to read, easy to navigate, very sound grammar and solid organization.

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 no images or media in 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
People are asking for feedback in the talk pages and there are discussions for improving portions of the article as recently as 2017. The page is a part of a course assignment.

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 was comprehensive and complete. Strengths include the amount of information squeezed into the article, but I would love to see an image or two to really brighten up the page.

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 — ~

Cthulhu3 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Exercise completed
 * Link to feedback: