User:BISCquick/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: PACAP
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) is a protein of interest in the research lab that I am currently a part of. Researchers are finding that this peptide has multiple physiological roles, but there is still more to be uncovered. There is plenty of research and literature about PACAP and its capacity in the body, but it does not seem to be a well known topic - this article is evidence of this.

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 is brief and lacks substance. The topic is presented clearly and the reader understands early on that PACAP is a peptide but there is no discussion of general function or significance. I believe that it is good that VIP is mentioned (and linked) as this offers the reader a good reference to a comparable protein which may help with understanding. The structure of the lead is choppy - the gene which encodes the protein is mentioned, PACAP's receptors are noted, and a very vague description of one function is offered. Ideally, these elements would add to a good lead but in a way that alludes to the articles major sections (perhaps sections like genetic origin, physiological significance/function, and a brief description of the mechanism by which the peptide works). In all the lead is off to a fair start but requires more information.

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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic, there is useful information provided about the gene that encodes PACAP, the function of PACAP, its mechanism, and an example of its physiological significance. As in the lead, the information is not well-organized and is lacking. The information available in the article can easily be reorganized into sections that group relevant details and information together. The article does not contain extremely detailed information. Much of the literature on PACAP can get fairly verbose so it will be important to synthesize the information in a manner that is suitable for this type of article. In the case of this article, it would be beneficial to increase the level of detail slightly. This article does have a good amount of sources but citation are infrequent in the main body of the article. The article has mostly up-to-date information but it has been a few years since any major edits were made.

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
I believe the tone is neutral and the balance is even as there are no claims that might indicate bias. When the article discusses a study in which PACAP is associated with a pathology, the tone remained neutral and the information was presented in an unbiased manner.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Organization is lacking, but I believe this comes with the lack of information and lack of detail. Based upon the amount of "further reading" links, there is surly plenty that can be added to really bolster this article. When more information is added, the relevant pieces can be grouped together under headings. The presentation of the information that is present can be reordered and/or placed into groups that discuss the major points.

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
All of the images are relevant and do enhance the understanding of the topic. All of the figures and images are adhere to Wikipedia's regulations as well. If possible, I might add visuals that vaguely explain the multistep mechanism by which PACAP works and perhaps relevant anatomical images if clinical implications are discussed.

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
The talk page lacked any conversation, but I did notice in the edits that there were a number of further reading links added by multiple users. I think that beyond a discussion of what to include in describing PACAP, these supplemental pieces of literature should be reviewed and discussed to determine their ability to enhance a readers understating of the protein. I looked into other talk pages on some of the links that were present on this page and I noticed that there is a lot of discussion centered around clarification, accessibility of information, relevancy, and understanding. As we discussed in class, Wikipedia is available to all - it is not a scientific journal nor is it a research publication. The content has to be correct and clear but it also must be presented in a way that encourages and enhances anyone's understanding of PACAP.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
I had hoped for more but I understand that there is not a ton of information about PACAP in the community beyond biologists, physiologists, neuroscientists, and others of similar background. The article offers a good start, but it certainly needs remodeling. I am excited to see plenty of links to further reading about PACAP - if there is more information to be read elsewhere, this means that there is valuable information that can be added to this Wikipedia article. By no means will this article be perfect any time soon, (new discoveries are made every day anyway, science is never stagnant) but I am confident that there is more information that can be added to get this article off the ground and to provide an adequate understanding of PACAP.

BISCquick (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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: