User:Kris m123/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cell death

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 it because I am biology major and just took cancer cell, where we had learned about cell death in great detail. Cell death is extremely important in everyday life, as well in certain diseases such as cancer, and understanding why and how cell death happens. My impression on it was it was well written and easy to understand. All the information seems correct on my first read through, and I loved all the visuals to help understand.

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.)

Overall the first impression of this article was very good and complete. The information is correct, no big errors stuck out, and it was organized well. I will be looking at each important section in detail.

The lead section was well done. The first sentence explains what cell death is. The rest of the paragraph touches on key concepts such as apoptosis as well as necrosis, this is covered later on in the article. The lead is fairly short and straight to the point which I liked, as it gives a good overview of what the article is about, and it does not mention anything irrelevant.

The articles content was relevant. Even though there was not a crazy amount of text, I think it covered the important basics. The information is up to date. I think the weight of each topic was well done, equal amount of information on apoptosis and necrosis.

The tone and balance was well done. Even though this topic is hard to be biased about, the tone was very neutral and showed no preference. The article does not try to persuade the reader in anyway, just the facts and information are laid out.

There was lots of sources and references, all seemed very reliable. This article had 16 sources which I felt was great for the length and topic of this article. Some references are older such as 1993, and some new such as 2020. I think getting both old and new sources is good to see the difference in information between past and present and see if anything has changed and consider that into the article. The links do work which is great. The sources reflect the topic very well.

The organization and writing quality was also well done. The article is well written, sounds very professional. I like the way the article was organized, first apoptosis, lastly necrosis. I see no grammatical or spelling errors.

The article includes images to enhance the readers learning, these are super helpful. The captions say what the pictures are showing which is helpful. The images are laid out in an appealing way.

On the talk page for discussion there is only one comment that there is hope to find a better picture of cell-level necrosis, which I do agree which, however I think the visuals as of now are fine to demonstrate the information included. The article is of interest to 4 different biology WikiProjects.

My overall impression of the article is it was well done. The articles strengths are the facts and information it displays. The information is correct and I like the way it is written and easy to understand for someone who may not be familiar with cell death. The article could be improved by including reasons for apoptosis and necrosis, for example necrosis can happen by a chemical burn or bug bite, the article says mutations or viruses which may be confusing to readers as why mutations would cause necrosis, bug bites and chemical burn are easy to understand since there is visible inflammation in both and necrosis is used in 'emergency' situations and is instant. This may help people understand why necrosis is happening and in what situations apoptosis happens versus necrosis. Overall, the article was complete. It was well written and had all correct information, and did not have any huge errors.