User:Cellbiostudent15/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Cellbiostudent15 evaluation

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Cell Physiology (Cell physiology)
I have chosen to evaluate this article about cell physiology because cell physiology is an integral aspect to understanding the working mechanisms and functions of human cellular biology.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
The lead includes an introductory sentence that explains the concise definition of the term Cell Physiology that is an easy to understand and easy to read format. This allows for a simple introduction to the article's material even for readers that may not otherwise understand.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
The lead includes a brief legend that explains the different sections of the articles materials.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
No, the lead is brief and is simply an overall explanation of how the article is organized.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The lead is light, and could provide more details to create an easier, quicker method of overall including information to the reader.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
The articles content thoroughly invests into the curriculum of the topic on a basic but easily explained level. This allows for a brief but detailed explanation for readers to get information about the topic.
Is the content up-to-date?
The content does not appear to be up to date. It appears that the latest date that the article was about a month ago.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
There does not appear to be content that is not relevant to the article.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
The article does not address historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Is the article neutral?
The article is neutral because it does not represent a certain stance, rather, it explains the educational stance of a scientific topic.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No, in general this is a neutral article.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Because the article is neutral about a curriculum topic, no there are no over or under represented topics.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
No, the article remains neutral.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
The article is easy to read. It keeps the information short and to the point.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
There does not appear to have any errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
The articles is well organized and has excerpts that are easily broken down to be able to read.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
The article includes relevant graphs and diagrams to make the topic easier to understand.
Are images well-captioned?
The images are not well captioned and the explanations are not easy to read. The article could improve in this aspect.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
It appears the images properly adhere to the copyright regulations.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
The images are side by side to the proper information.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
A lot of the discussions behind the scenes seem to agree the article is clear and concise but not very in depth and could improve in that aspect.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
The article does not appear to be a part of a wikiproject.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
The wikipedia explains cell physiology in a definitive way that does not go very in depth but gives a basic overview to any reader who does not otherwise understand the topic.

What is the article's overall status?
The article is rated as techinically difficult for readers to understand.
What are the article's strengths?
The article is organized and has clear and concise imagery.
How can the article be improved?
More in depth conversations about the articles content could improve the article.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
I would say the article is under developed.

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 — ~~~~