User:Rnh3u/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cell death

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Cell death is an important, reoccurring section in biology. I chose it because, as a Biology major, it is something I'm interested in reading about and possibly improving. My preliminary impression of it is that it is rather well made. There are several helpful diagrams and the author is clearly well-versed in the topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section is short and concise. It is easy to read and understand, leading nicely into the following topics.

Content: Content is relevant to the topic, and seems to be up to date. I am not well versed enough in the topic to recognize what is missing, however, the page is missing a date for the academic journal cited. It is important to add a date because topics dealing with the medical field change and update frequently, making it necessary to check on the information constantly. This article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: The tone is very neutral accurate. The topic is noncontroversial, so there are no viewpoints needing to be mentioned.

Sources and References: The link for the first source does not offer much information about the source at all. I would suggest Improving it by adding the date it was published, the author, and a brief summary of the contents. Links seem to be working and are peer-reviewed. However, they are becoming outdated. Updating the sources with more current ones would probably be for the best. While the information may not be completely inaccurate, it is important to note that scientific field is improved every day so sources are usually best when kept within the decade.

Organization and writing quality: The article is well organized and written clear and concisely. Only improvement I could suggest is adding bullent points to the section "Other Variations of PCD" in order to make it clear to the reader that what is presented is a list. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media: While the images added are great resources, they are much too small and contain too much text. This makes them hard to read and understand. I would suggest making the images larger. The captions are accurate and concise.

Talk Page Discussion: The only conversation is a single imputes asking for a better image for necrosis. There is not a reply yet. The article has been rated as "Start Class"

(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.)

Overall Impressions: The article is fair. There are plenty of improvements to be made such as with images and flow. There is also much that can be added as cell death is such a broad topic. However, what is written is fairly well written and given plenty of references. They just need to be updated as they are going slightly out of date.