User:Skuma010/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Omegasome

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I found the article while going through the cell biology stubs. I thought this article seemed interesting, and there isn't much information provided about the topic in the article, so I thought this would be a great article to improve and evaluate. Also, I thought the name of topic is cool and intriguing.

Evaluate the article
 Lead section 


 * 1) Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 2) * The description of the topic starts off well, and briefly defines the topic. However, I believe more information could be added and the sentence could be rephrased to describe the topic in a better way.
 * 3) Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * 4) * No, the lead section has information that is not representative of the different sections of the article. There is only the description of the topic: macroautophagy. Relationship between Omegasomes and different cellular organelles is not well described.
 * 5) Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * 6) * I don't think the lead section has any information that is not crucial to the topic.
 * 7) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * 8) * I don't think the lead section is concised because of the lack of information. The initial headline is concise, but the section could be rewritten better and provide more details about the topic.

 Content 


 * 1) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * 2) * Yes, the article has information that directly describes the topic.
 * 3) Is the content up to date?
 * 4) * This article was last updated in december of 2020, so it is not up to date.
 * 5) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * 6) * Yes, there is content that is missing, but no information that is unrelated to the topic is present in the article.
 * 7) Does the article deal with one of the Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance


 * 1) Is the article neutral?
 * 2) * Yes.
 * 3) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 4) * No.
 * 5) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 6) * No, just lack of information.
 * 7) Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * 8) * Not applicable.
 * 9) Does the article attempt to persuade in favor of one position or away from another?
 * 10) * No.

 Sources and References 


 * 1) Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 2) * Yes.
 * 3) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * 4) * Yes, the sources provide information on the topic.
 * 5) Are the sources current?
 * 6) * No. The sources are at least 5-10 years old.
 * 7) Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 8) * Yes, the sources are written by varying authors.
 * 9) Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed article in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * 10) * Yes.
 * 11) Do the links for the sources work?
 * 12) * All the links work perfectly fine.

 Organization and writing quality 


 * 1) Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 2) * It is not concise enough. The second section of the article is awkward or difficult to read.
 * 3) Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * 4) * No.
 * 5) Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * 6) No. The article is underdeveloped and does not have multiple sections representing the subtopics in the article.

 Images and Media 


 * 1) Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 2) * Yes, but the images are not well presented.
 * 3) Are images well-captioned?
 * 4) * No. The article contains external images, which are from a different website.
 * 5) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * 6) * Yes.
 * 7) Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * 8) * No. They are disproportionate and unappealing.

 Talk page discussion 


 * 1) What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes on how to represent this topic?
 * 2) * Not applicable as there are no conversations.
 * 3) How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects?
 * 4) * The article is a part of the WikiProject: Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology. The article is rated as a Stub-Class.
 * 5) How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * 6) * This article has not been discussed in class yet.

 Overall impressions 


 * 1) What is the article's overall status?
 * 2) * This article does contain information directly representing the topic, however it could be improved in various ways.
 * 3) What are the article's strengths?
 * 4) * The article has a good overview of the topic, but lacks in detail of the different characteristics, and subtopics related to the article.
 * 5) How can the article be improved?
 * 6) * The article can be improved in many different ways. More images representing the topic can be added in an improved way so that they look visually appealing. Information from more current sources would also enhance the articles strength.
 * 7) How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * 8) * This article is underdeveloped and needs more information regarding the topic.