User:Gaw301/Evaluate an Article

Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells
 * I chose this article because it appears to have more recent activity than other articles I viewed, it features topics I am interested in, and it is applicable to my perceptions class.

Lead evaluation

 * The introductory sentence feels a bit wordy, but appropriate for the topic. Also, I expected the brief description for the topic in the introductory sentence to have a little more detail in it. It gives a history of the origin of the topic in the lead, instead of providing a deeper definition of the topic. It only includes information that is also found in the article. It seems to be a bit over detailed because it talks about the discovery, instead of the function.

Content evaluation
The article's content appears to be up to date, and relevant to the topic, featuring information on its function and discovery. all of the content feels like it belongs, and maybe more content can be added.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does seem neutral, just presenting facts, does not feel like the article is trying to persuade the reader.

Sources and references evaluation
The article seems to have a lot of references to neuroscience articles/books. Does not seem controversial. The majority of the sources are from the 2000s ( 2000-2009) so semi recent, there may have been research Developments since then. The links do work.

Organization evaluation
The article appears to have well organized sections with a nice overview of the topic in each section. Maybe the final section is a bit lacking-- the research on human subjects--because it only speaks about it briefly. The grammatical errors don't seem very striking, so it is most likely fine, maybe I'll find more upon closer examination.

Images and media evaluation
I think the the introductory image appears to be a bit outdated, and could be changed to a more detailed photograph. There are only 5 pictures featured in the article, so there is an option to include more, and more detailed ones. I wish the captions had citations to the origin of the photos, but sadly there isn't. They are also not slayed out in a very appealing way.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page feels a bit bare, only 4 topics are being discussed, with one being untitled. Sometimes there is only one comment under a topic. For one of the comments, they talk about the discovery section being bias, so it clearly needs some more overview on it, since no one else answered. the article is assigned to 3 wiki projects and 1 student editor, it is C-class. The last time the talk page was used was in 2015. They only discussed the topic when trying to make the article more neutral, and only talked about the conscious sight once.

Overall evaluation
I feel like it may need some more updating if it was only last discussed in 2015 on the talk page, there may be some edits I haven't gone into deep research in yet that may be incorrect. The article strengths is that there is no obvious bias. It could use a big more editing in the final section and the Lead. The article appears to be a not well developed, but not under-developed, there could be some more improvement.