User:Woohan0819/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: (link) Organ printing
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article to evaluate because I have interest in organ printing and its progress of it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it says, "Organ printing utilizes techniques similar to conventional 3D printing where a computer model is fed into a printer that lays down successive layers of plastics or wax until a 3D object is produced."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise on the topic that they are trying to explain

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic of organ printing.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, I think the content is pretty old dated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I think the content is pretty thorough and clear to point that there isn't content does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article deal with Wikipedia's equity gap and addresses the topics of history.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it shows both point of possible organ printing's technology.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think there is viewpoints that underrepresented which is challenges of organ printing.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, because the article is basically on informative.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the articles are backed up with citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?\
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are in 2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by variety of citation. They include marginzalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well written and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * As I go through article, I don't really see a grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well broken down into sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article have really few images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images in the article is well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The scenses representing this topic is that organ prininting's techniques.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated pretty fine and I think it's not part of any Wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way Wikipedia dicusses this topic differ from what we talked about in class in a way that patent law not explained.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is well organized and written article that I want to add some parts of it.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths is detailed explanation of organ printing's techniques and usage.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by talking about other challenges of organ printing.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well 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:Talk:Organ printing