User:KatJackson66/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Adult stem cell)

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 about adult stem cells as I believe stem cell research can help lead to biological advancements in the medical field. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was well written and informative but could also be approved upon.

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.)

Lead section:


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic?

Yes there is a clear introductory sentence that describes the topic of the article


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

I think there could have been more written to describe the sections discussed in this article.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, all information mentioned in the lead is present in the article.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the lead is clear and simple enough for the reader to understand stem cells on a basic level.

Content


 * Is the article’s content relevant to the topic?

Yes, all information is relevant to understanding adult stem cells


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the content is up-to-date with the current knowledge of the field.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All included content is relevant, however, i think more information could be added to how stem cells function specifically signalling pathways.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

This article is strictly informative on the field of adult stem cells

Tone and Balance

This article is from a neutral point of view and does not show bias toward any particular position. In addition, this article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a specific position.

Sources and References

The article is backed up by reliable sources mainly from the NCBI website. These sources are becoming rather out of date with the oldest source being from 2003 however, the latest is from 2018. From the several links I checked they all appear to work.

Organization and writing quality

I believe more information could be added to the introduction to describe the organization of the rest of the article. Several of the sections are in bullet point format which I think could be expanded on. Grammatically the article does not seem to have many errors. The sections included are relevant and well organized.

Images and Media

There are very few images used in the article. The images that are relevant and are well-captioned however, more could be included to enhance the understanding of the topic.

Talk page discussion

Conversations mainly discuss the organization of the article and how it can be improved upon. The articles rating is a B-class and is rated high-importance of the projects importance scale.

Overall impressions

Overall this article is good but could still be improved upon. The article has a clear lead and has a neutral biological explanation of adult stem cells. The organization of this article and use of images could be improved upon. This article is well-developed as it has the necessary information but could include more and improvements in its organization could enhance the overall article.