User:Arina.clavel/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: Ancient DNA
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article, because it sounds very interesting to me. I hope I will be able to learn something new from it, and that I will be able to add some useful changes to it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I would say that, yes, it has an introductory sentence, but for me it does not fully describe the topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it does. For example, in the Problems and errors part there is a couple of sentences that look very similar.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, it is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead, in my opinion, has enough information to shortly explain what the topic is about.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Not all the parts were up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that for most part everything belongs to the content. what I am missing is that there are no proves or results of the researches presented there.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I did not notice any relations with any of the Wikipedia's equity gaps. And no, there are no historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content of the article is more of a very brief overview of all the studies related to the aDNA, which is presented in a very poor way.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * For me it sounded neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I did not see that there were any exact evidences that the topics on which the researches were done give any exact result.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
On my point of few, the tone of the article was neutral. I did not notice any attempts to convince the reader to a certain viewpoint.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No ,there are some facts that require more detailed references.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, there are a few sources that do not seem to be an available literature, and there are some that do not have enough information to distinguish what source is that.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Partially.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Generally the sources and references are very helpful and accurate. but there are a few of them that cannot be used as references as they do not provide access to the studies that the information was taken from.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * 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.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is well done.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one image that is not enough for enhancing the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, but it would be better to enlarge it.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
In this article there is only one image, which is not enough for adding more explanations and understanding to the reader.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most conversations are about the sources, references and links, that they are not up-to-date. or that the information in the article does not match the resources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated class C. Yes it is in WikiProject Genetics, WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In the class the topic of ancient DNA was mentioned very shortly only for an explanation of how PCR is working.

Talk page evaluation
The Talk page has a lot of additional information that shows that there is still a lot to work on in this article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Intermediate
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Does not seem to be strong enough
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The references should be edited. The way how the information is presented, should be edited. Also there should be more images, figures, and more research conclusions.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
Overall impression is close to poor. This article did not provide me with any new information that give me more understanding in that topic.

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: Talk:Ancient DNA