User:Immcarle174/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of the Cancer Immunology Wikipedia Page

Lead Section
Although the article is classed as a C-class article, the introductory sentences already have multiple noticable flaws. Although I am nitpicking a bit, the introductory sentence that introduces the topic are worded a bit too vaguely (and perhaps inaccurate) to describe Cancer Immunology. Although the following paragraphs overlining the major sections are concise, there is a general lack of connection/flow about the section's relevance to the overall topic. Additional sentences would greatly improve understanding the page.

Content
Each of the major sections are very brief in length. Not only that, but I believe that some of the text have been partially copied and paste from primary sources (cannot entirely confirm this, but it very much appears to be the case). The reason I think this is the case is simply due to how the contents for each sections are briefly and incompletely described with no logical flow in topicality nor relevance. Hell, the grammar is wrong in some places as well ("Immune system is the key player in fighting cancer").

Tone and Balance
I believe that the writer(s) were able to present a somewhat neutral stance. The exception to this was with the last section (relationship to chemotherapy). Although the writer(s) do use a neutral tone, the author(s) seem to be trying to draw their own conclusions from a series of references (many which appear to be primary sources) instead of dictating a consensus of a medical group. Beyond that section, the paper has little issues in this section.

Sources and References
As I mentioned previously, the page suffers from what citing what appears to be primary literature (At least from what I observe/think). These suffering sections can be greatly improved with more secondary up-to-date literature. Beyond that, most of the other sections are well-cited.

Organization and Grammar
Certain sections are written well enough to understand, but generally many sentences lead a lot to be desired in specificity of wording and in grammar.

Images and Media
Looks good. No complaints.

Talk Page
From the discussion, it appears students have worked on the page in the class but the page never was reviewed by a medical professional. There was discussion about an page being fixed by an editor (with changes that would help clean up the section) but that was 5 years ago and the page history indicated that the discussion never really resulted in any changes, which is unfortunate.

Overall Impression
The article was started by a few of what I presume or immunology students starting a page on wikipedia. They only worked on the page for a short duration before leaving the incomplete page in an unprofessional form. Since then, there have been talks of reformating the page but the aside from a few changes here and there the page is largely abandoned.

Which article are you evaluating?
Cancer immunology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article has been randomly chosen as my example wikipedia evaluation article for my Immunology class project. Although this is mainly practice, I suspect that my professor may check for an sample evaluation so that I decided to attempt an evaluation to the best of my ability.