User:Ambikakhurana/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: Synaptic Potential
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because not only is it one of the articles that our Professor has suggested as an article to use for edits in the future, but it is not a finished article. Thus, it is a good way to begin thinking about how we can enhance articles and elaborate on information that is already present within the scientific discipline our class is looking at.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that just gives a basic definition of what a synaptic potential is, and is clear and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Since this article only has one section (the Lead), it does not include a brief description of any other major section. However, I feel like the Lead has enough information in it to suggest what major sections could be added once the page is edited.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Since the article only consists of a Lead, it does have a few paragraphs of information that is not present in the article. The information in the lead could be expanded to develop an actual article for this topic though.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is 4 paragraphs long and to me could be considered overly detailed. A lot of the information that is present in the Lead could be put into a different section once there are sections that have been added to this article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content in this article relates back to the synapse and other topics relating to synaptic potential, such as long-term potentiation, synaptic plasticity, EPSPs, and IPSPs. This article also mentions how synaptic potentials are different from action potentials, but can still add up to potentially form an action potential. The article also provides links to the categories of neural plasticity and neural synapses which is also relevant to the more specific topic of synaptic potentials.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Since the content of synaptic potentials does not really have specific history that changes day to day, this article is up to date. However, the most recent source is from 2013. I think this article could be elaborated on using more recent sources, since there probably is a source that talked about synaptic potentials between 2013-2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In this article, I do not think that there is content that does not belong here, especially since this article is very concise about what synaptic potentials are. However, the article mentions thresholds a few times before actually providing a link to a Wikipedia page about action potentials and thresholds. I think it would be useful to shift the link to the first time thresholds are mentioned, and to maybe include a very quick and simple definition of thresholds within this article itself. Also, repolarization is not mentioned anywhere in this article, and that is an important of potentials firing just like depolarization and hyperpolarization.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I did not find any claims that appeared to be heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, I think in the last paragraph, the article brings up a viewpoint that is underrepresented. The article talks about research into synaptic potentials and how important research on how to increase or decrease its amplitude for medical uses. However, the article does not talk about any of these medical uses which makes me feel like the viewpoint is being underrepresented. The article talks about how important synaptic potential research is but not why this research is important or what makes it important.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article just presents factual information about synaptic potentials but does not really give the reader any indication to be persuaded in favor of one opinion over another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The article does have a few sources listed, but nothing itself in the article has a citation. Therefore, because nothing in this article has been directly followed by a citation, the article is not backed up be reliable sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Since there are only a few sources listed, I do not think that this reflects the available literature on the topic. There are definitely more sources out there that can be used to enhance this article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the sources are not current. The most recent one is from 2013, and there definitely are more articles out there that can provide more information from recent studies conducted. Just doing a basic search in the GW database brought up an article from 2017 about synaptic potential attenuation in dendritic spines.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Out of the sources provided, there are only two links provided in this article, and only one works. The other one brings up an error message when you try to open the page, so the links definitely need to be updated or provided for the sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * To me, the article is well-written but only because the Lead is provided. If major sections were touched upon in the article, the article might have seemed a little harder to read. However, since this article just covers synaptic potentials very broadly, it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is not well-organized because it is not broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. All the information is provided in the Lead and is kind of thrown at the reader all at once. If someone reading this page was looking for a specific detail relating to synaptic potentials, they would have to read the entire article to find it rather than being able to quickly locate it.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not include any images at all.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images provided, so this question is not applicable to this article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images provided, so this question is not applicable to this article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images provided, so this question is not applicable to this article.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is only one comment on the Talk page about maybe fixing the technicality of how summation is used in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as Stub-class on the quality scale and Mid-importance on the importance scale. It is part of WikiProject Physiology and WikiProject Neuroscience.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I feel like Wikipedia talks about this topic in much more detail than we would maybe cover in class. Even though there is only one comment on the Talk page, it is a very detailed question about the technicality of how a term ("summation") is being used. Usually, in classes, there is a broad understanding of the topic at hand but no discussions about the technicalities of topics that might be out of the scope of a class.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is that it needs a lot of work.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has a good beginning for someone who wants to edit it. There is a lot of great information provided to help guide someone who wants to elaborate on synaptic potentials. Even though a few sources are provided, it is a good start to finding more sources that can relate to the sources already provided.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article's Lead could be shortened and a lot of the information could be moved into the major sections. Also, major sections need to be included. There also needs to be more sources provided with their links. Another very important way this article could be improved is by citing information in the article. Sources are provided under the references section but throughout the actual text, none of the information is actually cited. There should also be images included, as well as a table of contents. Some of the information can be expanded upon, but again, this could be done in a major section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would not say that the article is poorly developed because it has a good start to elaborating on synaptic potentials, but I would definitely say that it is underdeveloped.

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: