User:Mbarr2022/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Mesoderm

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose an article that pertains to the topic of our class, Development Cell Biology. Gastrulation is one of the stages in embryogenesis, a vital concept in this course. Mesoderm is one of the germ layers formed during gastrulation and is responsible for forming life-vital structures. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was not long, but the categories/sections of the article were organized and on topic.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

1. The introductory sentence informs the reader of what the article is about, but the more confident word choices would improve the article's sound. Find words that replace "very" and "most" with more concise and backed-up wording.  
2. The lead section includes a brief description but does not tie into the labeled main sections of the article. Overall, the lead section could be more organized and thought out, especially about the article's chronological layout matching in the lead section.
3. The lead section includes keywords and topics that don't appear frequently enough to be included. It has details but not the details that describe the main focuses and concepts pertaining to the mesoderm germ layer.
4. The lead section as a whole is not concise or detailed. It is a good start, but we can make it stronger and more elevated by cleaning up the organization and providing more confidential, factual, toned writing.

Content:

1. Overall, the article's content is relevant to the topic of the mesoderm.
2. It is hard to distinguish if the content is up-to-date; however, the references could be outdated. They date from 1993 to the early 2000s.
3. I am a little confused about the section "Molecular regulation of somite differentiation." It could be more substantial if more connections were made to the mesoderm. I like the sections that break up the different mesoderm parts. The immediate mesoderm is a short section that could be beefed up with more content and sources.
4. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps; its primary focus is the biological components of the mesoderm germ layer.

Tone and Balance:

1. Yes, the article is neutral.
2. I do not see any heavily biased positions on any topic in this article.
3. I did not observe any viewpoints that were overrepresented or underrepresented.
4. There was no discussion about minority or fringe viewpoints in this article.
5. I did detect an attempt at persuasion.

Sources and References:

There is a pop-up that this article needs more reliable resources. The sources are not current, from the '90s and early 2000s. There are better, more reliable, and more peer-reviewed sources that can support and add to this article. The links to the sources work.

Organization and writing quality:

1. The writing goes from easy to read, but it does not describe the topic in the depth that it needs to be. The overall article is not concise and easy to read.
2. I detected no spelling or grammatical errors
3. The topics/sections of the article are good, but they could be placed in a better chronological order.

Images and Media:

1. The article only includes two images. More images should be added to at least each section to help the reader better conceptualize where the mesoderm is being discussed and what it is connected to.
2. The images are captioned well enough.
3. Images adhere to  Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
4. The images are laid out fine but look awkward because there are only two images.

Talk page discussion:

1. The topics on the talk page are about expanding the topics because the mesoderm contains so much more information than currently present in the article, focusing more on the mesoderm and less mention of the germ layers, examining not just humans and vertebrates.
2. The article is rated C-class. It is part of (mid importance) "Anatomy: Embryology" and "Animal anatomy" WikiProjects.
3. This article does not differ much from the discussion in class, but we went into more detail and key concepts about the mesoderm compared to the article content.

Overall impressions:

I agree with the C-class rating of this article. The article was good in terms of the easy-to-read approach. However, the page lacked a huge amount of content; the sections could be better organized, and the article could have more current and reliable sources. This article is poorly developed but not a lost cause; it needs more time and effort.