User:Kamrynshealy/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: Cell Membrane
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • It is relevant to the material covered in this unit of class.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Lead evaluation

The introductory sentence does a good job in describing what the cell membrane is and other common names for it. The lead starts introducing the major sections by discussing the composition of the cell membrane and some of its functions, but it does not continue to introduce the rest of the sections. Overall, the lead is fairly concise and all of the information discussed is expanded on throughout the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Content evaluation

The article is up to date and provides all relevant information about the topic, such as the composition and functions of the cell membrane. While the cell membrane is a broader topic than encompasses a lot of information, there are smaller details missing, but overall the article was lengthy and does a good job of covering the most important information concerning the cell membrane.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The topic of the article is not one that is controversial, so tone and bias did not pose a problem. No viewpoint was over- or underrepresented and the reader was not swayed in any one direction.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Sources and references evaluation

Overall the sources appeared to be reliable and all the necessary information was backed up by a source. The sources were thorough and from reputable journals and research. Most of the sources were fairly current, although some were started to get dated, such as one from 1966. All of the links within the article, within a source, and the external links at the end that were checked worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Organization evaluation

I found the article to be very well written. It covered all relevant information and was organized in a way that was easy to follow and easy to find the appropriate heading. There were no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Images and media evaluation

While the article does include well captioned images in some sections, I felt like more would be useful. For example, the sections about proteins and prokaryotes could be easier to understand and visualize with extra pictures and diagrams. All the images adhere to the copyright regulations and were visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Talk page evaluation

A lot of the conversations in the talk page were suggestions of topics to discuss in class. Nothing is drastically different than how we have talked in class. The article has a C-Class rating and is involved in only one active WikiProject-- Molecular and Cell Biology.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Overall evaluation

Overall I thought the article was well made and appeared to be well-developed, although it could use the addition of more subtopics throughout. The talk page has a fairly extensive to do list for the article and I agree with many of those improvements.

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: