User:RealUser1/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: Vitelline membrane
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- This article is about an interesting topic, however the article itself is not very comprehensive.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, however there are not major sections
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, due to there not being any other sections to the article
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- Unknown, however only one source is used (Gray's Anatomy) so it does not include information that could be found in various primary sources
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- More content could be added about different organisms and history of discovery using further information from various primary/secondary sources
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No

Is the article neutral?
- Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Detailed, but not comprehensive
Are the sources current?
- Somewhat (Gray's Anatomy)
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- No
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Concise: Yes
- Clear: Yes
- Easy to read: Not necessarily due to the academic jargon being used
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- N/A - there are no sections to this article

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- No conversations
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Rated as a stub
- Part of the Animal Anatomy WikiProject
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- Similar to BIOL 330

What is the article's overall status?
- Stub
What are the article's strengths?
- Compact and succinct
How can the article be improved?
- Needs more diversity of information (eg. more sections)
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- Underdeveloped (stub)

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 — ~~~~