User:AmareiOouka/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Article 1 (Group III)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Lattice protein: (Lattice protein)
 * While going over different topics related to protein folding, the article page seemed to lack some details and vague in descriptions.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead starts with a concise introductory sentence. However, following introductory background on the reason for developing 'lattice protein' is quite lengthy in sentences and is loose. It does not fully describe on the sections of the article below.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
Contents are relevant. However, some areas are not well described and may be out of date. Especially, the article mentions about typical types of different lattice structures, but fails on illustrating the differences or reasons for using such different lattice types.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is balanced throughout the content except for the sentence claiming that most researchers consider a lattice protein to be protein alike only if a single lowest energy state is possessed. This claim at least needs a reference to be clarified.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All sources listed are reliable, thorough, and current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is quite difficult in reading. It is not well organized and paragraphs in sections are not partitioned well enough. Also, the flow of the content is not in single direction and some of the details in latter sections pop up in the sections above and some are repeated below. It may need editing on its categories.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are two images describing the HP-model. It is well-captioned and there is no copyright violation. The image is simple and clear, but maybe not that attractive.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article was found in 2018 and there were no further contributions other than the peer reviews. The article is rated as Start-Class and Low-Importance.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is poor in its organizing and details. It may need some more contributions. Before reorganizing the article with different categorizing strategy, improving the details of the contents might be needed.

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:

Evaluate an article - Article 2 (Group I)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * HBcAg: (HBcAg)
 * While involved in an interaction screening project for HBV core protein, I focused on the structural characteristics of the HBcAg.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead starts with a concise definition. However, the following sentence describes about its use as indicator of infection which is not illustrated in the main sections of the article. The lead is too short and do not summarize the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
Existing contents are relevant, but a lot of details are missing. Even below the Structure and Function section, the structure of the protein is not described. Also, under Interaction section, the article only mentions about Tapasin and no further descriptions on various different protein-protein, protein-DNA, protein-single molecule interactions known.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. The viewpoints are not well-balanced.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All sources listed are reliable, thorough, and current. The contents are almost not cited and definitely need more references.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is too short. The sections are not balanced and contents under each categories are not relevant to the corresponding subtopics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Even though the crystal structure of the protein is known, there is no structure image of the HBcAg protein itself. There are only the schematic of the HBV and the HBV genome. Existing images are well-captioned and appealing. However, the schematic of the HBV image may be misleading because of its labeling of HBcAg within the image.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated as Stub-Class and Low-Importance. There is only one opinion on the talk page discussing about the misleading image.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is poor in its details, organizing, and references. At least, the article should describe more on the characteristics of the protein rather than its use in medical treatments.

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: