User:Everdin26/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Name of article: (Cell Division) Cell division

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate as this is likely the paper that I am going to edit, and I feel like I can make some good contributions to it. I am pretty familiar with the subject of Cell Division and believe that I can improve the article.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead includes a concise and clear introductory sentence which introduces Cell Division.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * For the most part, yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the page was recently edited.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there was not a section on prometaphase, and DNA damage repair could have been explained in more depth.

Tone and Balance

 * 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.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Multiple sources are used throughout the article and they seem to all be backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The article is split up into multiple sections and these sections reflect the major points of Cell Division.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * All of the conversations in the talk page are discussing potential edits throughout the paper, but for the most part are reflections of the organization of the article. There are some questions by certain individuals regarding certain statements in the article, but for the most part it seems very well received.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as C-Class on content assessment and has not received a rating on the importance scale. It does seem to be apart of various wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article focuses on eukaryotic vs. prokaryotic cell division, degradation, history, and variants which we did not discuss. It also goes more into depth with the mitotic phase, which we did not focus on heavily. Overall though, it seems to have some similarities to what we discussed in class!

Overall Impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Informative article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Multiple sections with good descriptions for each section. Good organization overall.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More sections could be added to improve some understanding in certain areas.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Well-developed