User:CJessica/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]The article I have chosen is Cell-based models.
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I found this article under the biology related Class-C articles, meaning that it may still need to be improved upon. Cell-based models relate to the study of Cell Biology, which prompted me to select this article. My initial impression was that the article was very short and could use a significant amount of elaboration in various sections. It was also not very visually appealing or organized with enough sections to provide an accurate overview of such a large topic.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section of this article is far too short. While it is concise, it does not include a brief description of the article sections. The model types and simulation frameworks are not referenced at all in the lead section.
The content of the article is relevant, but not very detailed. There is very little written about the vertex model type. Additionally, the simulation frameworks are simply named and not described at all.
The tone is neutral with no apparent biases present.
The article has a lot of strong citations and links throughout the article. Every point stated has a proper citation. The links work and are appropriately placed throughout the article.
The article is well written and concise; however, the organization may be able to be improved upon. Additional sections could be added to expand upon the topics and provide advantages/disadvantages to each model type.
There are no images or media present in this articles, which decreases the quality greatly. The addition of well-captioned images would improve understanding of the article, especially comparing the different model types visually.
Overall, the article's strengths are it's multitude of citations and concision. However, it lacks a variety of information related to cell-based models. The lack of images is also a major weakness of this article.