Kbeier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A 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. 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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. 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? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Wikipedia 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. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A 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. 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections. 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? Images and Media 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? Talk page discussion The 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. 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? Overall impressions 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? Examples of good feedback A 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. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Flow cytometry

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because we discussed flow cytometry in class, so it is relevant to the course. I also chose it because I do not have any previous experience with it, and I wanted to learn more about it while also being able to complete an assignment for the course. My preliminary impression

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead-in for this article is comprehensive. The only thing that seems to be missing from the introduction is any sort of history description. I do not think that this hinders the article in any way however, as one does not necessarily need to understand when or where the instrument was made in order to get a good overview of what it is.

There is one section that does not seem to go with the rest of the article. The section "Impedance Flow Cytometry" seems to talk about a completely different concept. If this is relevant to flow cytometry, it does not say so.

There does not appear to be any biases or signs of misrepresentation in the article. It appears to have been written in a neutral point of view.

The majority of the references cited in the article are peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals. Those that are not peer-reviewed articles are important to the article because they provide information like product information from manufacturers for example. There is one instance, however, where the reference provided is to a flow-cytometry information page which has its own references and looks somewhat like the Wikipedia article (https://microbiologynote.com/flow-cytometry/#google_vignette). This leads me to believe that there is definitely a better source of information, as there are clearly several peer-reviewed articles and textbooks to choose from. The information acquired was also used to make a blanket general statement about using flow cytometry for a variety of applications, so it was unnecessary to the article overall. Aside from this, most of the articles seem relevant and to contribute to the article, and all links that were clicked on worked.

The article is easy to read, and I did not find any grammatical mistakes. The organization made sense and it was easy to follow. Further, images and figures are straightforward and are captioned well.

Most of the entries in the Talk section were submitted by internet bots, and the only human review on the article from 2016 indicated that the "Data Analysis" section was not well explained. Additionally, the article has been used in a number of WikiProjects and was given a grade of A in 2016. The article talks about this topic generally in the same way we talked about it in class, but it does go deeper into the topic. Where we spent about five to ten minutes quickly going over the topic in terms of what fluorescence of the cells means, the article explains the other types of flow cytometry and why/how they're used.

Overall, the article gives a thorough description of the topic. It would be a good resource for anyone who is simply interested in learning what flow cytometry is, but it can also be used for people who want to go deeper and learn how the instrument works and the different forms that it can take. The article could be improved by being written with less jargon, and it could be made more readable for anyone that does not have a scientific background. Beyond the history section, the rest of the article reads like it was written for people in the scientific field, and not for anyone who wants to know what flow cytometry is and how it works.