User:Bluechemist22/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: Transcription factor
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it is about transcription factors, which relate to the class topic of Nucleic Acid Biochemistry.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead introduces the topic of transcription factors and then describes what they are and their basic function. The Lead for this article briefly walks the reader through the major discussion points that are elaborated on in the content section. The Lead does not present any material that is not included in the article. The Lead is concise.


 * 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

The article's content is relevant to the topic of Transcription Factors. It seems, after browsing the reference section, that a majority of the resources and information cited are older than ten years old. However, there are citations that are more recent like 2016, 2018, and 2019. I think there should be some more articles from recent findings. All content seems to belong and I did not think there was missing content. Although, there were some sections, especially in the beginning the article, that seemed very brief. i would have liked to see more information included in those. I think the author(s) of this article could have gone more in depth. I don't think this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.


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

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article is written with a neutral tone. A claim that appears heavily biased to me is the role of transcription factors in evolution. This claim is stated with the assumption that evolution is the correct explanation for the origin of life. This also ties into the third question asked about viewpoints being underrepresented (evolution is the only viewpoint given). The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.


 * 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

I did see a large majority of the facts being backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. However, I noticed that some paragraphs ended without a citation for the last sentence and I wondered from where that information came. From looking at the reference list, it seems that the sources were thorough and reflected available literature on the topic. The sources could be more current. A majority of the sources were from over 10 years ago. There were some articles from 2016, 2018, and 2019, but I think there should be more current articles. The sources seem to be written by a wide variety of authors. The links for the resources 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article is well written. Occasionally, there were some sentences that could have been more concise and have a better flow to them. I did not find any spelling or grammatical issues. The article is well-organized, but some of the sections seem to be lacking information, especially the first half of the article.


 * 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

The article does not include many images in the beginning of the article, but once I got to the second half of the article, there were a lot more helpful diagrams and images. The first picture in this article does not have a detailed caption; this caption could be expanded. the second and third images, have very detailed captions. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations because all of the images were original works from the authors. The images are formatted in a visually appealing way.


 * 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

There is a lot of talk in the talk page regarding clarification of terms and making the article less confusing. This article has been rated in the B-class and is part of the Genetics and Molecular and Cell Biology WikiProjects. After looking at the talk page, it is interesting to see how people are challenging each other, in a very helpful way, to go deeper into the material (to include more information, to think about the material in a different way, etc.). In class, the material is presented in a rather linear way; there is more of a convention to how the information is presented. Whereas, on Wikipedia, the conversation brings up a wide variety of ideas about the same topic and seems more free flowing.


 * 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

This article is considered a vital article (level 5) in General Biology. The articles strengths is that it provides a wide range of information about the topic of Transcription Factors. It provides information on a topic that is very important to understand in biology and biochemistry. The article could be improved by "beefing up" the first half of the article. These early sections are lacking in information and could be greatly expanded upon. I think the article is developed, but, as I mentioned in the previous sentence, there are sections that need a lot more detail.


 * 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: