User:Nataliya.pavlyk/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
B16 Melanoma

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.)

This article caught my interest because it is relevant to the medical field, and I can use the knowledge from biochemistry classes to learn more about this topic. It matters because cancer impacts a large portion of our population, resulting in mortality. For this reason, the research and study of B16 Melanoma is significant and has various applications. My preliminary impression of the article was that it is short, only has a few sections, and could be improved.

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:

The lead section defines the topic and provides a brief overview. It includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic of B16 Melanoma. It includes brief descriptions of the sections in the article. It does not include information in the lead section that is not present throughout the article. It is concise and not overly detailed.

Content:

The article's content is relative to the topic, and it is somewhat up to date since the last edit was made in September 2022. The article did not talk enough about the applications of B12 melanoma within the medical field. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented topics.

Tone And Balance:

The article is written in a neutral point of view. There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. However, the article is biased towards the position that B16 melanoma is useful. There are no viewpoints that are underrepresented or overrepresented. There are no minority viewpoints within this topic, which is why it's not represented. The article attempts to somewhat persuade the reader that B16 melanoma is useful instead of discussing the benefits and drawbacks of researching B16 melanoma.

Sources and References:

All facts in the article are backed by reliable, and thorough sources. However, most of the sources are not current and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles.The few of the links that I tried clicking on worked.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is somewhat well written. The first sentence of second paragraph within history section is run down and can be rewritten with a clearer structure that is easier to follow. Additionally, the last paragraph of history section mentions a discovery that was made, but did not explain it well. It is broken well into sections, however it can be improved by adding more sections. It does not have grammatical errors for the most part, but some sentence structures are awkward and can be rewritten.

Images and Media

The article only includes one well-captioned image that helps to visualize B16 melanoma. It is laid out visually appealingly and follows Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The article can be improved by adding more images.

Talk Page Discussion

There are no discussion in talk page regarding this article. It has a C-rating class. It is a part of Biology and Molecular Biology WikiProject. In class we discussed the concept of tumors and how they work. However, we did not discuss that a tumor like B16 melanoma can be used in research for various applications.

Overall Impressions

Overall, this article is well written but can be improved. Some sentence structure can be rewritten and some points need to be elaborated upon. Additionally, more sections should be added and more up to date sources should be used. The article's strength is a good lead section with a concise overview. The article is underdeveloped since there is more information about it that can be discussed.