User:SihamS15/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: Glia
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it talks about a type of cell that is very important for the nervous system, which is an important part of this course. This article will further explain a type of cell that was previously discussed in class and it will hopefully provide a deeper understanding of the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead of this article clearly describes the topic that is going to be addressed. It provides a brief description of most of the article's major sections, except for the "Development" section. All the information provided in this part was further described in their respective sections of the article. Additionally, there was not an overwhelming amount of information in the Lead, but rather it was enough to understand what would be addressed further on.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

After reading through the article, it was evident that most of the information was up to date and relevant to the topic. Nonetheless, there are certain parts that could have been written more concisely. For example, the explanations of each cell that falls within a glial cell classification. Some of their descriptions could have been summarized more, especially for the astrocytes. There was no evident information missing from the article, as everything was very well explained. Besides this, everything in the article was relevant, as no information was misplaced or went on a path different than the topic at hand. Additionally, although it may be a fact, there is a part that addresses Albert Einstein's brain and how the amount of glia in his left angular gyrus was more than normal. I believe this could have been omitted or more examples could have been added, as it seems out of place because it is the only example provided.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article does not seem to be biased towards a certain point of view, nor does it try to persuade the reader to believe a specific view on glial cells. It clearly describes different views on the importance of glial cells, including how they were seen in the past and how they are viewed currently. Nonetheless, a viewpoint that is underrepresented is that of the belief that glial cells only served to hold neurons together. The article just mentions this and provides no further explanation as to why that was believed in the past.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

After checking a few of the sources used in this article, it was evident that most of the information was cited correctly. Wikipedia pages were linked to terms that could potentially require further explanation. Also, most of the sources are secondary or tertiary and obtained from PubMed, which is a reliable place to look for information. There is one part that was not cited by the author, where they mention that something has been said but not by whom. Besides this, the article includes at least one citation per paragraph, which is what is recommended. The links that were checked, work, and the sources vary from 20 years ago, up to last year, demonstrating a range of available literature on the topic.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article is well written and easy to read, as anything that is not clear has a Wikipedia page linked to it. Nonetheless, there are parts that could be more concise, like the explanation of the different cells that are categorized under glial cells. This part is done in a table format, which could include bullet points with concise ideas rather than long paragraphs that become tedious to read. There were no grammatical errors that I could see in the article. Besides this, the article is nicely broken up into parts relevant to the main topics.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes various images that provide a further understanding of the topic with short captions. Although the captions clearly identify what is being depicted, they could be more descriptive as to why they are important or why they are included. All the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are laid out in an appealing way for the readers to understand what they are related to.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This article is rated a B Class article and is part of many WikiProjects related to neuroscience, physiology, anatomy, and cellular and molecular biology. The conversations going on in the talk page refer to the lack of sources and organization of the article. Some of the comments are written in a rude way, while others are critically constructive. Nonetheless, the article has been edited since and it has improved upon what was mentioned in the talk page. The way in which Wikipedia discusses this topic is different than what has been discussed in class because it is way more extensive and detailed. Nonetheless, the most important information of the article was covered in lecture.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article is very useful for explaining what glial cells are and the history behind them. It provided the information needed and a further understanding of the topic. The article's strengths include the details used in the explanations of different types of glial cells and the way in which the information was divided. The article could be improved by making some of the cell types a little more concise, as they are somewhat unbalanced. I would say that this article is well-developed, as it contains most, if not all the relevant information regarding the topic and it is very informative.


 * 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?

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: