User:Julia M Weaver/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: Basophilia
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It is a stub, and the material is highly relevant to cell biology and physiology. I am very interested in fleshing this out if it is determined necessary.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes but EXTREMELY briefly
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * TOO concise

Lead evaluation
(needs significant work) The lead section is one sentence and does nothing to introduce the sections of the article or give a detailed explanation of the subject.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * yes

Content evaluation
Every section is extremely bare-bones and lists very general information, not supplementing with details or examples of any conditions or testing procedures.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 clashing viewpoints
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * not apparently

Tone and balance evaluation
There is little to no bias and not truly any viewpoint other than a medical assessment of the condition. There is little to no persuasion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All links work, but there are minimal sources, accompanying minimal information.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The section breakdown is coherent and clear, but the whole article is very staccato.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
there is one good image with a very simple caption. it is visually appearing and does not seem to infringe on any kind of copyright violation.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
not much is going on, the article is of low importance is is a stub. The article is important and relevant to the ongoing physiology focus of improving information in this field on Wikipedia.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
stub! The supplementary links are beneficial, nut it needs so much extra information. It is underdeveloped, significantly.


 * Link to feedback: