User:BioRox333/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: Daf-2
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is a topic that has been mentioned in my molecular genetics course at university and secondly, it has been discussed in many scientific articles involving the insulin-like signaling (ILS) pathway in a nematode model system, Caenorhabditis elegans. The wikipedia article doesn’t seem very well developed and there doesn’t appear to be a lot of information on the page. I think more research needs to be presented in this wiki article in order to provide people with a better overview and understanding of this topic.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the introductory sentence gives a clear and concise definition of the gene and how it is present in a specific signaling pathway in C. elegans.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not really. Some sentences in the lead provide certain topics that could be made into major sections however only 3 were written. I think additional sections could be made such as the gene’s role in resistance to oxidative stress, thermotolerance and bacterial pathogens.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Cynthia Kenyon is mentioned in the lead however her research on the topic is not explained elsewhere in the article. I believe she should be mentioned in the lead and then her research should be addressed and expanded into a new section. Her research into DAF-2 mutants and how they affect lifespan in C. elegans has led to other scientific questions in the genetic field involving humans.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is very concise however it doesn’t have a very good flow. The last sentence is a little bit of a “throw away” sentence and I feel it should not be included in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the article’s content is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

In the reference list, the most recent scientific paper cited was in 2011. Additional studies have been made on this topic in the last few years so the article should be updated.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I believe there is content that is missing and the information needs to be more up-to-date.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, it does not deal with either of these two topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes, the article is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No heavily biased claims are on the page.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Kenon’s research is mentioned a lot in the references so perhaps research by other scientists in the field could be included.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it is good at explaining the facts without expressing biased viewpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

A lot of the references are scholarly scientific papers however one reference is from an online source (wormbook.com).


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I think additional more recent research could be included.


 * Are the sources current?

The most recent source was from 2011 so more recent literature needs to be represented.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

A lot of the sources focus on Cynthia Kenyon’s work because she is one of the main scientists in the field. I think more research from different scientists should be included if they have published work on this topic.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It’s fairly concise however the sentence structure needs to be modified in some cases in order to improve clarity. Some of the word choices might also need to be changed to make it more understandable and the flow between sentences could benefit from revision.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No spelling errors, however there are a few capitalization problems regarding gene name and protein name.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think more sections would be appropriate as this would allow more detailed explanation of the information within the topic.

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
There are no images on this page so including an image or two would be helpful, especially for visual learners.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There is only one comment about this article on the talk page and they are requesting more detailed information so the reader can understand.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated as a Start-class article with low importance. It is part of two WikiProjects: WikiProject Genetics and WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It has actually kept in line with the things we have discussed in class however I think more information can be included and clearer explanations provided. As per my class discussions on this topic, it is quite complex and difficult to understand especially when you look at how DAF-2 can affect C. elegans in different ways.

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
Overall, I think this article needs some additional work in order to improve understanding and clarification. Organizing some of the information and providing additional sections would benefit the reader. Images or diagrams of relevant pathways or even a fluorescence image of DAF-2 expression in worms could help the visual learner. More recent information is also needed in order to keep the public up-to-date on the new research being carried out on this topic. This article has done a good job of presenting the basics however it should be expanded with more details and more recent research activity.