User:Kannbrown2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cell Biology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is a topic that is of interest to me and I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject so I felt as if I could provide a decent review. This subject matters because cell biology is a foundational knowledge that biologists and most students should know to understand how life works on this planet. My preliminary impression of the article content was there were many redundant and repeated sentences as well as not enough information, the organization of the content was off and could benefit from rearranging.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This section does precisely define what cell biology is and can be considered a good opening line. Many of the sections are mentioned in the lead section, but they are in a different order which I believe could be confusing to readers and a few are missing. For instance, the history of the cell discovery is not mentioned and the techniques used to evaluate cells are explained before breaking down what a cell is. The lead paragraph does not contain any information which is not mentioned later in the article. it is also concise explaining everything that it needs to explain without going into greater detail than needed. As of my current knowledge of cell biology, the content is up-to-date and relevant. They do go into detail about some things like cell cycle checkpoints but they do not go into detail anywhere else like that. I believe that the section on the mitochondrial membrane dynamics should not be included or should be condensed and put under the initial mitochondrial section in structure and function. If they were going to go that in-depth in one organelle they should have done it for all of them or this information be put on another content page and linked to this one. I do not believe it deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The overall tone and balance of this article are good and do not sway toward specific viewpoints. It is a very objective article where it just talks about the facts of cell biology. It also does not attempt to suede the reader just presents the facts. Most of the sources are current a few of them are from the early 20th century and one was from 1665 but most were from 2010 and later. I do believe for a few topics there are better peer-reviewed sources that could be used but most of the sources are from peer-reviewed articles. The sources that I clicked on all worked and led to scientific journals. The article is decently easy to read and most of the organization is good though it can be confusing to insert content about techniques on how to study cells before talking about the cells themselves. Overall the article provided a decent breakdown of cell biology although it could have benefited strongly from better organization and better sources for the content.