User:AnthonyFernandez65/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: (Bradford protein assay)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate- I have experience with utilizing this technique in a laboratory setting and would like to expand or clarify the information presented in this article.

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 introduces the topic at hand, properly, but it lacks the overall structure of what is expected to be mentioned later in the article; making it too short for what is necessary to explain what is anticipated later in 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * The article's content is on topic throughout the entirety of the article and relates to the important theory surrounding the topic. It is does well in mentioning the execution of the technique and its purpose. The content is up to date and doesn't appear to be missing any content or contains content that does not belong. Wikipedia equity gaps or historically underrepresented populations or topics is not relevant to the topic.

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 unbiased. It presents facts in a neutral way with no position taken and there is balance between all areas of the topic; from theory to execution and purpose, so as to not guide the reader in any direction.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * Most of the information presented is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, but there are claims that are left without citations, and these are marked as citations needed. The sources used come from a relevant textbook or peer-reviewed journal articles that have been published. The sources are up to date with the material and reflect what is necessary knowledge of the topic. The links are working properly.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well-written. It is concise and easy to read. I am not grammarian, but the grammar appears to be fine. The article is well-organized as the subheadings reflect what is to come and they are important to understanding the topic.


 * 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

 * 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

 * Images are included that enhance understanding of the topic. Certain structures or graphs as well as the expectation of possible results when performing the technique in an actual laboratory setting. Images are well-captioned, they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are laid out nicely.

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

 * Conversation are respectful. There are signs of adjustments and corrections being made. This article is a part of many WikiProjects, including WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. Wikipedia discusses the topic similar to class as I have read literature on this topic from many of the sources used, particularly, the textbook that is recommended by the class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is up to date and written for anyone needing a brief introduction or overview. The article's strengths are mentioning the keys to understanding not only the procedure, but also the background or theory of what is happening. It does a good job keeping balance to the procedure, background information and purpose. The article can be improved with a longer lead that includes a brief summary of the information that is expected to be read later in the article. The article is well-developed.


 * 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?

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: