User:Babs subs/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Genetic engineering

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it relates to the field of Biology and it seemed very interesting and in depth with plenty of sources and technical information.

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.)

The lead paragraphs for the article are well written and concise with the information it seeks to display. The only issue from the start is that it seems a little lengthy as an introduction. Much of the information is great information but as an introduction seems a little too specific, primarily the subsection explanations seem a little too specific for the sake of an introduction going a little too deep into the specific topic weighing the entire introduction down a little. The introduction is able to categorize the major sections of the topic well, although some of the later headers are not mentioned in the article that may be important like the large section of medicine initially unintroduced, the overall ideas the article wishes to cover are explained in the intro. By checking and comparing many of the key topics brought up in the intro, it is safe to say that the information covered in the intro is eventually brought up again throughout the course of the article at least once. Personally I feel that it could be a little more concise by adding a little less specific detail but the diction used in the description of each topic is straightforward and overall clear cut.

As the article is a large section of new age biological research, the mentioning of the branching relations in the overall field and the the overall description of the history are important to understand the context of the information and therefore are a vital aspect of the article necessary for the coverage of the topic. There are many sources ranging from many years, but the key point is that there are even sources from 2022 and so it seems like the article is up to date. I do not believe there is any missing information, everything I read was comprehensive and flowed well. For the point addressing if the article is underrepresenting other regions, because genetic engineering is so new and intertwined with technology it would make sense for the information to come from more wealthy western countries where there is an ability to allocate time and money into the new field at the time.

The content of the article is written in a manner similar to science literature as it seeks to share a similar message about this topic in Biology. No claim seems too biased in one direction with an overall general and objective views on the matter, explaining any good or bad when it comes to the consequences of using and furthering the research of genetic engineering or any previous issues related to genetic engineering.

All the sources in the article have functioning links, at least the ones that I clicked, and they all seemed to link to proper websites involving some form of journal. The only input of better research would be newer research surrounding the topic, but other than that the past research seems to be rooted in some pretty strong science with accurate links. The sourcing seems to be thorough as well with many links and many sources only furthering the strength of the ideas presented in the article.

The article is written very well, I feel that it is plenty digestible with enough science aspects that anyone can takeaway something new from it, no matter the level of current understanding they may have. Often it feels long winded, but despite that it is still easy to consume and understand with clear separation in category and in sub-categories that make reading compartmentalized in a way to better absorb information. I also could not find any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors as well.

The images used for the article are good although I wish there were a few more diagram. There are great images for some of the points such as to demonstrate the effects that genetic engineering can have in the industrial and agricultural industries but not any great representation of how the genetic engineering is used for the medical field or any real depiction of any moral or ethical controversy potentially possible with the topic. All the images are well cited and well defined giving an understanding of what the picture displays while accrediting the original image. Most of the images do not take up much space and are large enough to be understood but the breeding diagram is a little to complex to be that small and it makes the article a little more confusing at first glance.

The talk page is another area of concern as it seem relatively barren in comparison to other talk pages especially of more niche topics. I would imagine such a large and new aspect of biological research and interests would have more conversations and updates with newer research or any other complaints but it seems almost empty with only a handful of comments and a few deletions. I believe that would be partially because the article is well rated and very well written and displayed giving not a lot of room for criticism and changes. However that does not address why there have not been as many updates as there should for new and come research. I also do not think it is a part of any WikiProjects.

Overall the article is very strong being well written and reliable in sourcing. This article is a benchmark for well created wiki articles with only a few exceptions being the display of better imagery of certain aspects like others mentioned to better understand the content as well as more active updating for newer and better research especially in the practically dead talk page. The article has many strengths including making difficult topics understandable, providing a very large umbrella coverage giving a comprehensive understanding of the topic, as well as following the Wiki standards to a tee. I would finally say that the article is very well-developed with almost nothing to improve other than the things listed above.