User:Edidzba/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: Necrosis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article to evaluate s it is relevant to my coursework material and its is a comprehensive article, with extensive citations.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes article contains a well written title that summarizes the general cellular process.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not summarize all of the articles major sections, however, it does provide an appropriate overview of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Information from the lead of this article is presented in a simplistic matter which is further detailed in later sections of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and ideal for a brief overview of the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of the article is relevant to the topic. Links to other Wiki pages are provided to allow for further information on key terms, without providing too much background information about other topics unrelated to necrosis.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes the page was last edited October 9th 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article could be improved with further information on necrosis at a microscopic/cellular level.
 * 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 deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or a historically underrepresented population/topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * the article contains neutral, unbiased information
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims in the article that appear heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There does not appear to be any underrepresented viewpoint on this topic.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any potion, as there are very very positions one can take relating to the article topic of necrosis.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The article is well supported with an extensive list of unbiased citation sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources appear through and do not contain undeveloped research on necrosis or opinion pieces.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There is not indication in the sources that they are or are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The first three links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well written and reads easily to individuals without extensive knowledge on the subject of necrosis.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article does not appear to have any glaring grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well organize and the wikipedia template of headers and subheaders is properly utilized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article contains 6 images related to the topic. Histological images are provided to provide a visual representation of necrosis at a cellular level.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the images are sufficiently captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * the images appear to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images could be played out in a more visually appareling way by utilizing text wrapping.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Many Wiki editors have suggested topics for further elaboration related to necrosis on specific sites of the body. Some users have suggested different images or ways to view more graphic images of necrosis for the betterment of the wikipedia community.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated a B class article and is within the scope of the Death, Medicine, and Molecular and cell Biology Wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia addresses the topic more broadly than the way it is discussed in class and details are medical information about the topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is noted as a level-5 vital article. It is in excellent condition, however, it could be improved with the inclusion of more of the topics discussed in the Talk page.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * the article is concise and easy to understand.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could detail more relevant information of necrosis to the general population as discussed in the talk page.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is very well-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: