User:MortonA18/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Limb bud

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.)

The scientist that I am researching, Cheryll Tickle, did a majority of her research on chicken limb bud development. This article provided more details as to what they are used for and other details that may aid in my understanding of her research.

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

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is a sentence that provides an explanation of a limb bud.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No, it is quite wordy and there is a lot of information in the lead that could be placed in other content paragraphs further down.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the page was recently edited in September 2021.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article only states factual information regarding limb buds and their development.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, but it could be easier to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There was some discussion about how complicated the introduction and the information presented in the other sections was, but no one replied to that comment so I do not think anything was done to improve it. Someone else was verifying information discussed in the article and another person replied with an answer as to what was the correct understanding of the information.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article is much more confusing and goes way more into depth on this topic than we have ever covered in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article does a great job of providing an intense amount of detail about limb buds.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The information could be broken down a bit more to make it easier to comprehend if someone is not familiar with this information. Images could also be added to assist in this understanding.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is definitely well-developed.
 * It is definitely well-developed.