User:OwensSar000/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: Intracellular parasite
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Its is kind of a short article with a bit of information but it is also an interesting topic that would be fun to work with.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes it has and it clearly states the articles topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? it kind of covers it but its not very concise and has a section not covered in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it mentions that the parasites can cause diseases but it does not cover what diseases or if it just increases susceptibility.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Its kind of concise but very short and doesn't really direct to the sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? All content seems to be relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date? While it was edited recently the 2011 was the newest paper cited, so there might be more to add
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content seems to belong it just might need to be added too.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? nothing seems to sway one way or another
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It seems that all veiw points are represented and could have just a bit come coverage
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It seems to be pretty neutral in the information of intracellular parasites

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All facts seem to be backed up and linked to secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They seem to thorough and all be great sources
 * Are the sources current? They could be updated a little bit but nothing seems to be too out of date
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links seem to work just fine

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is pretty clear to read but the section on obligate could be a little better.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I can tell is that the grammar and spelling is fine.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well organized by topic but could be better organized in the actual paragraphs

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The image is good to show the actual parasites in the cell
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption on the image describes perfectly what it is
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yep

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One about the topic of the article and one about the difference between the extracellular and intracellular parasites
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Its related to medical, viruses, and molecular and biology projects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I cant clearly answer that.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I think it is in a good stance and could only be improved.
 * What are the article's strengths? It covers types of cells well
 * How can the article be improved? some of the formatting and more information
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? For what it has I think its well-developed and it could just use more info.

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: