User:AzulRover/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

1st option: Coiled coil - Wikipedia

2nd option: Segré–Silberberg effect - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Option 1: I'm primarily considering this article, because from what I understand of coiled coils and their prevalence in proteins, this article covers an insufficient amount of breadth on the topic. This topic comes up in my field of research in my lab, as coiled coils affect the structure and function of the protein we study, SNAP-25.

Option 2: I'm thinking about choosing it because it's related to my field of study. It matters because it affects blood flow. My preliminary impression is that it is well-researched; it seems to follow reasonable mathematical and physical guidelines, and the sources are cited at places that make sense.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Option 1: This article is about a broadly found concept in biophysical chemistry. Motifs and their possible functions in proteins are studied regularly, and the coiled coil motif shows up very commonly. This article does a good job of explaining what the coiled coil is, and the media for the article is appropriate. It is written neutrally; however, in my lack of experience on the topic and on Wikipedia, it's odd to me that it does not mention several of the common places coiled coils are found, such as in channels. However, in a highly studied topic, only two sources are from the last five years, and five total are from within the last ten years, out of 18 sources total. More recent data could be found.

Option 2: This article is alright. It has no media, and a gif or image showing flow of an object through a tube while obeying this principle would be helpful. There is no talk page, and the sources (scientific articles) are hidden behind a paywall, with only a little bit available. At the same time, this enhances the plausibility of authority on the subject.

The timeframe for sources is one from 2007, and a couple from the 1960s. Considering this is a topic from the 1960s, that's understandable. However, it still feels a little out of date for what feels like a relevant topic, and only one of the sources is by someone other than the original researchers of this principle. It could be improved by noting how the topic has been relevant in more recent years, and by including more sources than just the original researchers of this principle.

--~