User:Hvercellotti/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: Astrocyte
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because we discussed the function of astrocytes in one of our first lectures. They're a type of glial cell that provide structure to the nervous system.

Lead

 * Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does include a concise and clear introductory sentence. It notes that astrocytes are glia that are star-shaped and found in the brain and spinal cord.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does introduce the article's major sections. Structure, function, significance, and current research are all previewed. The only section not previewed in the Lead was classification, but that is one of the more sparse sections in this article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead was concise. It gave a brief preview of the main sections. It would be a good thing to read to get a quick idea of what astrocytes are.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. Each section focuses on astrocytes, whether it be their structure and function or the ailments that occur when they do not function properly.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date. Many sources referenced were published post-2000, with some being published as recent as 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * To my knowledge, there is no content missing. However, I will admit that I only have a basic understanding of astrocytes (their general structure and function as a glial cell). I also do not think that there is content that does not belong. I appreciated the detail that was presented in this article. It was quite interesting to read about the clinical significance of glial cells. I had no idea that they were implicated in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), schizophrenia, and chronic pain.

==== Content evaluation--I think that this page has wonderful content. The article goes into great detail about astrocytes and cites information from many sources, many of which were published relatively recently. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral. It does not appear that the authors were biased in any way, especially considering the number of sources cited--74!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I could not find any claims that appeared heavily biased toward a particular position. Information presented was very matter-of-fact.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I do not think viewpoints were overrepresented or underrepresented. Again there were a lot of sources used. Where I thought bias might play a role was in the research section. I was pleasantly surprised to read of research done both in the US and outside of the US. For example. scientists from New York and Colorado are cited as having done research and so are scientists from China (Shanghai).
 * 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 to pick a side. The information is neutral, providing only factual information supported by source.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The only facts that lack citations are found under the chronic pain section. There are not many citations, but I think there should be because the information is quite specific.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough to my knowledge. It seems like the authors of this article put a lot of time into finding good sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most sources are current. One was even published in 2019. There are, however, quite a few sources from the late 1900s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked did work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think that the article is well-written for a knowledgeable audience. Some concepts presented were quite complicated, but I could still get the general idea that was being conveyed.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find any 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 was very organized. I did not have a hard time navigating the page at all.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images were very helpful, especially for showing the star-shape of the astrocytes. They're really cool to look at.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the images are well-captioned. It is clear what the pictures show.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images do adhere to Wikipedia policies.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I liked the layout of the images. They were right next to the paragraphs that they related to.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Conversations are all over the place. Some people were concerned about image copyright, others were concerned about possible discrepancies, and others were concerned about adding new information related to astrocytes' role in neurogenesis.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated B-class. It is part of multiple WikiProjects (4).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think that the article was pretty good. It gave clear, unbiased information about astrocytes.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Strengths include organization, credibility, and thoroughness.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The clinical significance section can be improved by adding more citations and up to date information (chronic pain citations? new information on neurogenesis?)
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think that the article is well-developed. It goes well beyond a basic understanding of the subject matter.

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: