User:Biscuits417/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
G protein-coupled receptor

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I usually find myself reading a Wikipedia article when I am somewhat familiar with the topic, and sometimes when I know absolutely nothing about the topic. So, I wanted to learn how to evaluate a Wikipedia article under these same conditions as I intend on using these techniques in the future. As a result, I chose G protein-coupled receptors since it was a topic a struggled with during Biochemistry II.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The first sentence of the lead section provides a clear and concise overview of the topic. It explains the function of the GPCRs in somewhat plain language and provides links to articles that define and explain scientific vocabulary. The first paragraph expands on this by providing more information on its function and why this protein is significant for pharmaceutical companies, but still remains clear and concise. The first paragraph also works as a preview for the remainder of the article as most of the information mentioned in the lead is expanded upon further into the article. The author(s) briefly mentioned the significance of GPCRs in the pharmaceutical industry, but did not further expand on this topic further into the article.

Content:

The table of content is well organized, with subsections being created where possible to make the information more digestible. This created a clear flow in the sequence in which information was presented. Each section and subsection is provided equal attention where possible, however some required more space to completely and clearly describe a concept or mechanism. Still, all information included remained relevant to the topic at hand which was GPCRs. The article did not discuss equity gaps, nor did it address historically underrepresented populations, however, this may be due to the nature of the topic.

Tone and Balance:

The article maintains a neutral point of view, only presenting information that has substantial evidence. Since the article focuses on the shape and functions of GPCRs, it does not describe any biased viewpoints towards a particular position. It also does not try to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another.

Sources and References:

Although there is a diverse spectrum of authors listed in the references, much of the article cites author manuscripts, which is a peer reviewed paper that has been approved for publishing, from the National Institute of Health (NIH) website. A few links were checked, and they all worked but again, they all led back to the NIH website. Still, many of the authors included were from historically marginalized groups. Despite much of the references being from the NIH, they are still reliable as the NIH has strong guidelines for accepting articles, as well as for reviewers. As a result, they would be considered a reliable source of information. It is also important to note that the sources are current and reflect the available literature on the topic.

Organization and writing quality:

As mentioned earlier the article is well organized, a thoughtful flow is employed when disseminating information. The transition between sections and subsections are well executed due to the article being well organized. Where possible, the author(s) created subsections to further break down the information being shared. It is concise and easy to read, and where possible the author(s) cites other articles that explain vocabulary that may be unknown to the reader. No grammatical or spelling errors are present.

Images and Media:

The author(s) include images were possible to illustrates concepts that may be difficult to visualize and provide captions for each image included. These images are displayed in a visually pleasing manner and they follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion:

There were a few conversations occurring discussing the importance of certain sections and their inclusion, such as the pharmaceutical aspect of GCPR. Ultimately they decided to keep it as they found it important to mention, but not important to expand on. Other issues discussed included discussion on the function of the GPCRs, and the addition of figures to display these functions. Overall the article is rated level-5 vital article in biology and is of interest in to WikiProject Molecular Biology/MCB and WikiProject Neuroscience, and is inactive in WikiProject Biophysics.

Overall impressions:

Overall, this is a well written article that provides readers with a good amount of information regarding GPCRs. One of its strengths is the level of detail in the explanations. One thing that can improve the article would be to expand on the pharmaceutical aspect of GPCRs. Still, the article is well-developed.