User:EBreach/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Neuroimmunology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I selected this page since it relates to my interest in potentially writing an article on the epigenetic of autoimmune diseases for our future wiki assignment and the topic of neuroimmunology overlaps with this area of focus. This topic matters because developing a better understanding of how the nervous system and immune system interact with each other will allow us to better elucidate the cause of many health conditions and allow us to develop better treatment modalities. My preliminary impression was that the article is broken down into effective categories but that it was a bit short and lacking in information outside of the topic of epigenetics.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The Lead Section effectively communicates as overview of the topic of this page and provides a concise and clear definition of neuroimmunology. It hints at what the sections will cover but could be improved by explicitly stating them in the first body paragraph and not just in the contents bar.

The Content is relevant to the topic of this article and does not focus too heavily on one area more than any others. It does not address one of wikipedias equity gaps.

The Tone and Balance are done well in the article. It is written in a neutral voice and doesn't try to persuade the reader heavily. Many different points of study and views are represented in an equal and balanced way.

The Sources and References that are used are all from reliable research journals and from a quick glance all appear to be secondary sources. The text is appropriately. The author base is diverse and the links on the page work. The citations and footnotes are used appropriately. The sources are also recent. My only critique is that the page could become more detailed and discuss more subcategories of neuroimmunology with the addition of more sources.

The Organization and Writing Quality are good. The statements are concise and the grammar is good. The categories used do a good job at breaking down the main topic into major points.

This article doesn't feature the use of Images and Media but this could potentially be added to help the reader better understand the article and maybe the dichotomy of branches of neuroimmunology. Images to represent the immune system and nerves would also help.

This article is part of the Wiki project Neuroscience and Wiki project medicine. The Talk Page Discussion is active and features conversation discussing wether or not the page of neuroimmunology and psychoneuroimmunology should be merged. Compared to our course the Talk page feels a lot more informal however the main page fits in line with how Dr. Atkinson presents different epigenetic topics in lecture. The difference being the lack of visual aids used on this page compared to in class.

My Overall Impression is that this is a well researched and well written article. It does a good job at communicating what the field of neuroimmunology is and providing a brief overview. However the page could be improved by further exploring the major areas of neuroimmunology in more depth and by fully ironing out what we know about the interaction mechanisms between the nervous system and immune response at this point. It is slightly underdeveloped but does have a lot of good info currently.