User:Pchokshi0612/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: Glycolipids
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article pertains to our current course material in Cell Biology. I find this topic interesting and wanted to know more about it.

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
It clearly defines the topic in an understandable way. It also includes links to other wikipedia pages if the definition had words that were unknown to you. It includes a small description of some of the major sections, but not all of them. All of the information is in following sections in the article and go more into detail in their respective sections. It is concise. It is not too long and the language used is not overly difficult to understand. It hits the important topics that are talked about more in detail later on.Overall, it was not overly long in length or detail. It gave a good, thorough overview of the topic, which was a nice lead in to the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? All of the content in the sections of this article are related to the main topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All of the content in the sections of this article are related to the main topic. The most recent reference that had been cited was from 2015. There may be some new information about this topic in the recent years that could be added to make this a more updated article. All the content was relevant to the topic. However, like I stated previously, there may be new information from recent years that may be missing since it has not been updated in a couple of years.

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
This article was written in a neutral, objective tone. There was no apparent bias within the article. There was a good balance of viewpoints and sections throughout the article.

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
There are a good number of sources for the information throughout the article. The sources are reliable and most are from scientific journals. I checked some of the links and all of them worked by taking me to the references. The latest source is from 2015, so the sources may not be as current as they could be.

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 is well written and structured well too. It is easy to read because it is broken up in to multiple sub-sections that aren't too wordy. There are no apparent grammatical or spelling errors. The sections are also broken in a way that is helpful because they related to what was covered in the lead paragraph, the main topics.

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 article includes two images, both of which help visualize the topic to better understand it. The first image could have been captioned with more detail, but the second image has a better caption. The images comply with the Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are placed next to the material they are related to which makes it very convenient and helpful.

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
There is no recent conversation, but in 2015 there was some conversation about the accuracy and grammar of a few sentences/words. The article is rated as a Stub-class and was part of a Wiki course assignment. Wikipedia goes more in detail about the topic than we did in class, which was nice because I enjoyed learning more about the topic. The wording is also a little different compared to our class.

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
The article could be better, but overall I thought it was a good article. It provides helpful information for learning more about the topic. However, it could include more information. It could also be updated with any new information from the past couple of years. I think the article is underdeveloped. It has good content, but it could include more.

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: