User:Cora Christine/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
CTDNEP1, Dullard protein

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article based on the fact that there is very little information here on the Dullard protein. The Dullard protein is now CTDNEP1 and the information should be transferred to this page. This page on protein needs to be revised and I figured choosing a topic with little information on Wikipedia would be helpful for my assignment as well as others to learn. All proteins are very important to cell function and by evaluating this article I can learn while completing an assignment that will help others learn more about this specific protein. I'm hoping to find an image of the structure of the protein that will help provide more understanding. This should be very interesting as there is a lot of information out there but very little on Wikipedia.

Evaluate the article
It is important to note first that the Dullard Protein page should be suspended and all information should be applied to the CTDNEP1 page. The lead section does define the protein but does not specifically describe the sections that follow. The article proceeds with topics that are not introduced in the section that should be a brief summary.

As far as the content goes, I feel as though the problem is a lack of information. This article introduces new topics such as discussing neural development but leaves the thought unfinished and does not define terms so the reader is able to understand. This article is a good start as far as the actual information about the protein but definitely needs added context.

I do not feel that the article is bias in anyway, it is neutral. The author is stating facts not opinions nor thoughts. Considering this is a protein article I would not think there would be any bias or misleading information. It does not seem to lean a certain way or overrepresent one specific topic. The author has cited their paper with correctness, the newest article used was from 2013 while the oldest being published in 2000. They have used reliable articles not from random websites that cover the information discussed in the paper. The source published in 2013 may need further replication done to submit it as official information on the protein. There are several other sources that could have been used to elaborate on the protein further.

As far as the CTDNEP1 paper goes this has very little text information but does supply a table that will be very useful in doing further research. I plan to put all information from the "Dullard Protein" page onto the "CTDNEP1" considering this is what the protein is known as since the paper was written.

The page is concise but challenging to read if you do not have further information or a biology background. The paper does not follow the correct format needed for a protein. The Dullard protein page does not include any images but I think adding one will help readers understand more thoroughly. I would say it is pretty well organized although it does need to be put into correct protein format.

Regarding the talk page the a student discussed their revisions of the page where they added information and tried to add more content. The Dullard protein page has been edited by two students, one in 2016 and the other is undated. There is no talk on the CTDNEP1 page besides adding that the article has become part of my course assignment. These two articles have been rated as "Stub Class" and Wikipedia encourages others to add more information on the topic.

The article provides a base for the Dullard protein and has some solid information on it, but the biggest shortcoming is that it is not in the correct format. The Dullard protein page should be taken down (as per my instructor) and referred to as CTDNEP1 so I will be placing all further finding on that page. The page needs more development providing how the protein works as well as its function in organisms.