User:CoffeyCake4/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: Drug design
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I work in a pharmacy and find the topic of drug design to be interesting. It was also one of the only links I clicked on with a mid-importance score.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence gives a clear explanation of drug design and the commonly used phrases to describe it. The process of designing ligands and how to target activation/inhibition is briefly overviewed, including the software which can be used to view interactions (structure based drug design). However, the term "Ligand-based" drug design is not used, but is later listed as one of the two major types of drug design. The lead includes how the term "drug design" was used before deeper understanding of the process was discovered, which may seem irrelevant, but I think provides better understanding of the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
From my knowledge the article's content is relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does not appear to be bias toward drug discovery. Towards the end, the criticism subsection acknowledges the rigid layout behind rational drug design and the major discoveries which have been made outside of these concepts. The section entitled "Binding site identification" could use more information or an image to visually show how binding sites change. In my opinion this article does not attempt to persuade readers to favor a standpoint.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

I found most facts to be cited by reliable sources, but many of the sources could use more up-to-date material. The links I checked were available and working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article was concise and used easy language for everyone to understand. I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors. The sections were broken down logically, but could use more detail.

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?

The images were helpful for understanding the topic, but the first image could use a more detailed caption and explanation. Also, I mentioned before that an image of binding site inhibition or activation would be helpful.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

On the articles talk page, there is debate whether drug design should be apart of the drug discovery page and/or merged. There is also conversation about needing concrete examples of structure based design. The article is part of WikiProjects Pharmacology (B-class) and Chemistry (C-class). We have not discussed this topic in class.

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
The article could use more concrete examples, newer methods, and more images to improve understanding. After reading the talk page, I think looking at the drug discovery page for possible merging might be insightful. After reading more from the talk page, the tone is that the article could use more up-to-date methods and details.

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: