User:Penelope Sky/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: Cell sorting
 * I chose this article because it was listed as an available article for our class and knew it would be a starter article making it a good candidate for evaluation.

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 article has a short introduction that mentions methods of cell sorting without naming them and before defining cell sorting itself. The lead was incomplete and did not clearly describe the topic or the content to follow.

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 article included 1 diagram and 1 chart. There is potential for more. The diagram for MACs (magnetic-activated cell sorting) is not in the MACs section of the article and was cited from an article published in 1972. This could be beneficial if used to show the progression of the MACs system, if more current information was giving along with it.

There is also potential for more links to terms unfamiliar to the reader.

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 was written objectively; however, many of the references are from companies selling a product or have a direct relationship with methods of cell sorting. This gave the article voice and highlighted the expense of the systems rather than their functions. It also bounced between challenges and benefits to each type of cell sorting method giving it an inconsistent flow. It also had more on the methods and less on single cell sorting.

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
Many of the references are from companies selling a product or have a direct relationship with methods of cell sorting. Some of them are old. The oldest was published in 1972 and others in 2005 and 2013. Most of the links went to an abstract and was difficult to find the entire article or needed to purchase or subscribe in order to read it in it's entirety.

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 could use more information and more sections. Although it had sections for the different types of cell sorting methods, it lacked clarity and flow. The information was choppy and it could use more links to terms the reader may not be familiar with.

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 included 1 diagram and 1 chart. There is potential for more. The diagram for MACs (magnetic-activated cell sorting) is not in the MACs section and out-of-date. It was however more visually appealing than the chart on fluorescent dyes.

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
The talk page had a couple edits listed and one question on why a certain piece of information was in the area that it was. The revision is much better than the original! Better flow, clearer sections and labeling, more balanced information and more concise. The information is less guided by companies selling products and more about the cell sorting itself and functions of the different methods. The revision is a completely different article. This article is rated as a "start-class" and is part of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology.

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 original article's strength was it's foundation. It had the basic essentials (a topic, key terms a couple visuals and multiple references). The revised article's strength was it's simplicity and clarification. The revision was much more concise and had more relevant information on the true topic of cell sorting, not just the methods or equipment used. It also had more suitable references.

Both versions could use more information and more relevant visuals. The revised version is still incomplete, but is more developed than the first version.

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: Talk:Cell sorting