User:SamTheBioGal/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: Pancreas
 * The article's topic was closely related to the courses subject matter.

Lead
The lead is filled with a good quantity of information but does not overview the other sections.

Lead evaluation
Good basic introduction to what the pancreas is and does. Everything you would expect from a definition of pancreas is there.

Content
The article is somewhat up to date with the most recent sources being in the 2010's with the older ones stemming from the 90's. The content of the other sections are relevant to the topic as a whole. The community and technology section could be a little more concise. The use of terminology in that section might be difficult for readers unfamiliar with sociological terms like social forms and might need simplification.

Content evaluation
The content seems very broad and covers a lot. Each section seems to have a good amount of information that describes what the section heading says it will. There are a few sections that are a bit brief, like the "cuisine" section, but there isn't too much more to say for those sections. Maybe they could be included in one "miscellaneous" section to avoid the one sentence sections.

Tone and Balance
The article is mostly is written in a mostly neutral tone, however there seems to be a very slight bias towards viewing technology and its association with communication and social use in a more negative light.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is written with a medical informative tone that prevents bias.

Sources and References
The lead section has many inline citations that can be attributed to academic papers referenced at the bottom of the article. The other sections however, completely lack in-line citations or any source material for that manner ( a point made by other editors at the top of the page).

Sources and references evaluation
There are many references cited throughout the majority of the article, except in the lead. The papers referenced aren't all very recent, but a lot of the information presented in the article hasn't changed much in recent years, so this is acceptable. There are some anatomy books and textbooks referenced, which are great sources for this type of information.

Organization
The organization makes sense as it guides readers through different fields that sociotechnology as a study can apply to. There also was not any real jarring errors in mechanics and spelling.

Organization evaluation
The page is well organized and flows nicely to more specific information as the article progresses.

Images and Media
N/A the article does not use any form of images or visual media.

Images and media evaluation
The images included are relevant and well described with figure captions. The ones present in the article itself show up at relevant points. There are even some supplemental images at the end of the article that could be beneficial.

Checking the talk page
The talk page is practically blank and only mentions that the article itself was part of a course assignment with a student editor. It is part of many start-class wikiprojects but there is no actual discussion on the talk page.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page shows one relevant comment about the size of the pancreas, where information may have been wrong. The next comment is wildly unexpected, some guy is saying how his wife has unbearable pain and he needs help diagnosing it. This is not at all relevant to the article and I don't understand where it came from. Otherwise, there isn't much on the talk page, so people must not be actively editing this page much.

Overall impressions
The article needs some improvement. Only the lead has any sources attributed which is a critical issue considering the following section make use of many claims, quotes, and a robot anecdote without sourcing any references for the information. It is good as a bold attempt to start the discussion on a new article/field. It is poorly developed without citations on a majority of work and will need major editing.

Overall evaluation
I appreciate the basic information provided in this article along with the more specific information that comes later on. There are many references that can be further investigated if the information doesn't seem reliable. Everything is presented nicely and clearly.

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:Pancreas