User talk:JmwBIO401/sandbox

Which article are you evaluating? Nucleoplasm

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? I have chosen this article to evaluate because the nucleoplasm is an important and basic part of the cell and this article does not contain enough information on it. It is important that there is more accurate information in this article as well as stating information in a more interesting way because understanding what the nucleoplasm is, is a fundamental part of understanding how the nucleus works as well as the function of the cell as a whole. When I first looked at this article, I immediately noticed that there is not enough information and the sentences are worded poorly.

Evaluate the article: - The lead sentence should not contain every term that can be found to define nucleoplasm, rather just state that the topic is about the "nucleoplasm" and continue with a clear description of it.

- The only section in this paper labeled "Etymology", had no previous introduction.

- The lead contains lots of information that is not followed up throughout the rest of the article.

- The lead is short, although it contains random facts in which most do not have a citation. There needs to be more of a structure to the lead.

- The content included in this article is not relevant to the topic. It is not as important to know who founded the name of the nucleoplasm than to know the role it plays in cellular functioning. If this person (Edouard Van Beneden) contributed lots of work to discover the role of the nucleoplasm, then he can still be included in the article but more information on him should be present.

- Most of the citations in this article are outdated. Citations that are from the 1800s should be avoided.

- The section "Etymology" is unnecessary to include in this article because the nucleoplasm has nothing to do with the history of words.

- What is presented in the article is neutral although much of the information is underrepresented.

- The article is not persuasive

- Three out of the four sources are outdated. It is best to have citations at least after 2000

- Facts are not backed up by sources and the sources are not related enough to the topic.

- The sources listed are not thorough; two of the four are written in another language and the other two do not reflect available literature on the topic - there are other sources that provide more thorough information.

- This article is poorly written due to its lack of structure and grammatical errors

- There should be main points listed in the lead which should be followed by sections of the main points throughout the article. The one section included has nothing to do with the topic and it was not introduced in the lead.

- There is one image included which is a good image to use in order to get an idea of where the nucleoplasm is, although the caption is very confusing.

- There should be more images included as well as a revised caption to the image that is already included. The caption in this article states "the nucleus labelled as nucleoplasm", which does not make sense.

- The image included does follow Wikipedias copyright regulations. It has been released for public domain worldwide.

- This article is rated stub-class and of mid-importance.

- There have been two comments in this article's talk page. One of them stating that the article should be more interesting and include more information, and the other was a correction of something that did not make sense - "viscous solid" correction.

- Overall, I think this article needs to be completely redone because even where the information seems relevant, it is not properly cited. This article is severely underdeveloped and needs a lot more added to it.