User:Nbrayton2016/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * HeLa
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article was chosen because it relates to the course and I was curious why it received a rating of "C".

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
"The first few paragraphs do a good job at introducing what HeLa cells are and where they come from. It then goes on to briefly overview a few examples of how they are used in scientific research; these topics are further discussed later in the article. It had an appropriate amount of citations. Some of the writing came off in a biased tone and paragraphs also contained 'fluff' sentences that could be culled at no cost. The lead could have benefited from exploring the directions the article was going to go into but instead it offered itself as the one-stop-shop for a decent overview/quick-facts on the topic."

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The section where examples are provided on how the cell line is utilized scientifically is very thorough and complete. Considering the nature of HeLa cells, there are probably many more experiments that can be credited due to the use of these cells but important experiments performed were mentioned and cited with extreme prejudice. The content is in desperate need of an update. Some sections don't have any citations past 2014 and considering the amount of research involved with these cells, there is assuredly room for some more contemporary sources. Some sections grossly outbalance other sections. Some of the smaller sections could use a combination with another topic derivative.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
"The article takes a very neutral tone but there can be hints of biased objections revolving certain scientists or contributions. The article reads dryly, as it is scientific in nature, but I suppose that's exactly how it should be written. I found some of the sentences unnecessary and uninformative."

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
"The article could have benefited from providing multiple sources for the more controversial statements. Only one source on a sentence containing a heavy recollection could be more trustworthy and factual with more citation backup. The sources are semi current but could use updating. (most current source is 2018). The sources are referenced from books but primarily scholarly peer reviewed journals"Organization


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
"The article was easy to read but could use some unneeded sentences deleted. The article would benefit from an overall editing to also fix several spotted grammatical indiscretions. Some of the subsections are rather short and could be combined for a better effect on the article as a whole."

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
"The images provided are all well captioned. Where most of them don't add any scholarly insight, they do provide pleasant imagery to accompany the topic. They could be more evenly dispersed throughout the text as opposed to being in an image bank at the bottom of the page, where they currently reside. The pictures provided all come from scholarly articles."

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
"Talks mostly include agreements on how certain things were to be formatted, respectful discussions over what is a fact and what is not as well as a brief overview of the external links provided. It is part of multiple WikiProjects are it is consistently rated as C-class. It primarily provides more details on scenarios which the cells are used and what they were used to discover."

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
"Overall I think the article had strengths and weaknesses. It can primarily benefit from being grammatically proofed as well as skimmed for unnecessary sentences that are redundant or off topic. The lead could also afford to be shorted as misc. facts are included as their own lines; this distracts from the overall description of the topic, which is done in an effective manor with satisfactory detail. The article is strong in the amount of sources that it has (as well as the variety of the sources cited) but is weak in the currency of the citations. It could also be privy to improvement on overall article structure as it is a little all over the place, sections and subsections could be reordered/rearranged in order to help paint a more clear picture of the overall topic. Some sections are overly developed compared to the blatant underdevelopment of some of the other sections, this noticeable difference should be remedied as it suggests a greater importance of certain facts over other facts."

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: