User:Betrick9/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.


 * Ribosomal Pause Ribosomal pause
 * I chose this article to evaluate, because I wanted to learn more about what the ribosomal pause does during the translation of the nucleotide sequence.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the lead is helpful and defines a ribosomal pause well, maybe too well. The lead is honestly over detailed, and doesn't cut to the point of the article. This lead adds a lot of information that is not in the article, and does not give a brief description of the main sections the article discusses.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic. Some of the content is up to date, while some different aspects of the content is not up to date, based on the dates of the citations. I feel like this article could definitely delve deeper into the topics like the advantages of the ribosomal pause and ribosomal profiling. This article merely scratches the surface not much of an explanation in the sections.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article seems to be pretty neutral, because it is discussing ribosomal pause and the different features that have to do with a ribosomal pause. I think theres a viewpoint that is underrepresented when the article states, "its been known since the 1980's that different mRNAs are translated at different rates". My questions from this claim would be how has this been known since the 1980s, and who has made it known? Are the people that made it known reliable sources? The paper seems to attempt to persuade the reader into thinking there are a little bit more advantages to ribosomal pausing, because not many disadvantages are discussed.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the facts are backed up by very reliable secondary sources. For instance, many sources used are from journal sources that are found in the NCBI database. They are very thorough and go in depth on ribosomal pausing. Some sources are current, and others are about 20 years old. The links do in fact 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is decently written. It starts off well and makes the topic known and defines ribosomal pausing well, especially for a reader that has no prior knowledge. However, the overview seems to go more in depth on the article than the actual article subsection do. The sections of the article are labeled and easy to navigate, however in the section there is not much content.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

This article displays one image that enhances the understanding of the topic by showing us peptide synthesis and how it is done, which gives us a better understanding of the ribosomal pause because the pause is decoded into the amino acid sequence. The image has decent captions, but they could be better. The image is visually appealing with nice colors an symmetry. The image is his own work, so he is not copying anyones work, so he doesn't need to give them credit.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This article is apart of three different wiki projects, wand it seems to be 2/3's of mid-importance and 1/3 of Low-importance. It is rated in the stub class, which means its a very basic article. No conversations are being discussed for this article on 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article overall status is in the stub class and this is meaning its a very basic article that doesn't go deep into the subject. The article defines and give some information and makes known what the ribosomal pause is which is helpful. The article can describe more in depth what the advantages o the ribosomal pause and the effects on gene expression. The article is underdeveloped, it has potential to be well developed because of the organization of the subjects, however a surface level explanation is not good enough.


 * 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?

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: