User:MdMcAlister/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Regeneration in humans
- While this article primarily addresses regeneration at the level of tissues and organs, I'd like to understand regeneration at the level of the cell.
Lead
[edit]The lead sentence successfully captures the overall topic. The lead makes reference to most section within the article: the organs and tissues that have been regenerated and the methods used. It doesn't include information that's absent from the article. The lead is separated into three short paragraphs, so it's fairly concise.
Content
[edit]The content of this article all relates to various forms and methods of regeneration in humans. It includes some historical achievements (e.g. the first regenerated human bladder in 1999), but also includes research from 2019. The article could include sections on the underlying biology of human regeneration.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
The tone of this article is appropriately neutral, and doesn't represent a particular position (e.g. that we should or shouldn't try to regenerate human tissues and organs). Since this article isn't exploring the debates around regeneration in humans, it doesn't represent different viewpoints—it provides information.
Sources and References
[edit]The article includes 64 sources and most, if not all, of them are from peer-reviewed academic journals. Some of the references reach back into the mid-1900s, but most of them are within the last 20 years. That isn't surprising, as this field has been growing rapidly. The links I checked work.
Organization
[edit]The sections of this article are all fairly easy to follow—a few of the sentences are a little choppy, but still comprehensible. Overall, though, it feels unfinished. Giving a comprehensive picture of this topic would likely require some reorganization. Currently, the bulk of the article consists of two lists: regenerative methods and regenerated tissues or organs.
Images and Media
[edit]The article includes one image of a human ear being regenerated on a scaffold. This topic is amenable to more images and would benefit from them.
Checking the talk page
[edit]One Wikipedian brought up a potential topic: whether implanted organs can repair themselves and if regenerated organs would face that same problem. The article is part of three WikiProjects: Molecular and Cell Biology, Medicine, and Alternative Views. It's rated C-class in all three. The conversations here are from 2017 and 2019.
Overall impressions
[edit]The article is underdeveloped. It describes a number of regenerative techniques and regenerated organs, but doesn't capture many other aspects of this topic. Sections on the underlying biology could improve the article and make for a more comprehensive narrative.