User:AshleyRZ123/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: Cancer epigenetics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Cancer is something that I am interested in researching in the future and epigenetics ties into our molecular genetics class, so I could learn a lot.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead includes a well written introductory sentence, and includes SOME brief descriptions on major sections. Mainly includes topics not present in article but this information may not be important enough to get its own topic. Very concise, might be difficult to understand for basic reader searching topic.


 * 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
A bit difficult to understand for basic reader, well written, needs more info from major sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Content is relevant to topic and up to date. In subtopics of cancer such as skin cancer and leukemia, there seems to not be much information on the epigenetics relating to these topics. Nothing that does not not belong though.


 * 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
Can add info on skin cancer and leukemia relating to epigenetics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Article is neutral and nothing is biased. Some points are underrepresented like the eigenetics of certain topics.


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

Tone and balance evaluation
Flows nicely, can go into more detail about epigenetics of every topic in the article. Further along the article, less it becomes about epigenetics and more about cancer.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Everything is backed up by reliable sources that are up to date. many authors included, and links work.


 * 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
Not much needs to be done.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Well written, clear, but difficult to read. No errors in spelling etc. and organized nicely.


 * 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
Needs to be more simple to understand.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

few images, all important but there are two that are difficult to understand when first glancing. Good captions. and all follow regulations. Laid out okay.


 * 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
Check first two images that are difficult. Might be made easier to understand by altering caption.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Only one thing on talk page which is something a professional needs to go check out. Not many people seem to be working on this topic so it will be easier to add info on. Rated C mid importance overall. Differs from class because there is barely anything going on in the talk page.


 * 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
Add to it, not much going on.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, C-rated. Strength is amount of info, weakness is needs more on epigenetics towards the end. Hard to understand. Well developed overall.


 * 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
Needs to be easier to understand, add more to certain topics. Do not need to touch well elaborated topics.

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: