User:Mmfas13/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Magnetic resonance microscopy

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.)

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.)


 * Start-class article. Short and underdeveloped. Talk page has no conversation yet. Lead section consists of two sentences only and could be expanded to better summarize the contents of the article. The content is also not up to date; the most recent source listed is from 2017. New sections could be added to include recent developments or content could be added to existing sections. More (recent) images could be added, though copyright rules need to be followed. Wikimedia commons has a photo which may be relevant (verify).
 * There seems to be some advertising against Wikipedia's policies in the article. In "Nomenclature" section, the article makes a reference to a specific scientist who leads the MRM group at Duke University. It seems this reference should be changed to cite only the name of the group/lab. In the "Differences between MRI and MRM" section, the last (fourth) bullet point mentions a specific MR equipment vendor and their products (the company name is also incorrectly cited here -- it should be "Bruker BioSpin", not "BrukerBio Spin"). This sentence should be removed.
 * Some content could also be expanded. In the "Differences between MRI and MRM" section, the first bullet point seems unfinished. At the least, it needs grammar correction and a period at the end of the sentence. The term "higher evolution" can also be further explained or explicitly connected to the following bullet points. The second bullet point could be edited to include numerical values of the magnetic fields and resolutions of MRM and MRI (or merged with the third bullet point about resolution).
 * It seems some references are missing/misplaced. The third bullet point under the "Differences" section needs a reference. The paragraph under the "Alternative MRM" section needs a reference.
 * Of the nine sources currently listed, five are scientific articles with the same first author. Need more diverse information.
 * The "Current Status of MRM" section may need to be updated.
 * The link in "External Links" is broken.