User:Akalsip/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: Adenosine diphosphate
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because ADP is used in metabolism and in the use of muscles.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes it does without being very specific but gives a good overview
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes it has the description of what ADP looks like which isn't further explained but the uses of it are.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and doesn't have too many details

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is but there isn't a lot under each topic, it mainly gives an overview of reactions
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * the sources are old but the information is correct just not as detailed as the research has gone
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel like it needs more details on ADP roles in each of the processes and what happens as a result of the reactions

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * yes but it could use more to reflect the newer research
 * Are the sources current?
 * most are from about 10 years ago, the most recent was in 2013
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes it follows a clear path
 * 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?
 * yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Some are, some have no real discriptions
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * no, they are all on one side and small

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Talking about adding more information and improving figures
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C high, and it is part of four projects: genetics, chemicals, molecular and cell biology, physiology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * it is more of an overview and not as detailed but some basis of information

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C high
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * very well organized
 * How can the article be improved?
 * more detail in each section to explain the specific role in each step of reactions
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it is underdeveloped since it has good structure but just doesn't feel complete

Optional activity

 * 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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: