User:DHandy2014/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: Genotype
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The article can be cleaned up for conciseness and clarity. There are a few parts that are a bit confusing, such as the mention of "genomic flash card sequence" which another editor marked as needing clarification. I also think there should be a section on exceptions to Mendelian genetics which would talk about traits involving multiple alleles, codominance, epistasis, etc.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, though I find it a bit misleading because while genotype can refer to an individuals entire set of genes, it is primarily used when talking about a specific trait.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not one that is obvious.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It mentions denoting different alleles with letters but does not go into that very much in the article. The lead also mentions something about a "genomic flash card sequence" which i cannot find any information about
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the amount of detail is fine, it just needs to be better organized

Lead evaluation
The lead mostly just needs reorganization to flow for the sake of understanding.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * all of the content is relevant, only bringing up phenotype in order to explain the distinction between it and genotype. I think the figures could be moved around, it would be better to have the punnet square in the section with Mendelian genetics rather than the pedigree.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * the content seems up-to-date, though I will do a double-check for any new determination assays that may have been developed that I am unaware of
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is nothing that does not belong, but the relation of genotype to a pedigree needs to be better explained to include the figure with one. I think it also needs to include a section on traits with multiple alleles, epistasis, and codominance. These sections would focus on their relevance to genotype and would link to their wiki articles in a similar format to the phenotype section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not deal with or address these topics, and I am not sure it would apply.

Content evaluation
The content there is solid, though a bit too technical. I think the figures could use reorganization and the addition of a few sections to increase the understanding of the subject.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, I believe so
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I can notice
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I am aware of
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not that i can notice

Tone and balance evaluation
The topic is already starts fairly neutral, and while I could see where certain arguments could be made using genotyping, none are present in the article

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are certain statements in the lead that are not backed with a citation, some of them I would remove. Certain parts of the content are without citation but would be mostly covered by citing any genetics textbook.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Half of the citations are concentrated into the short section on determination, so more could definitely be added, but the articles there reflect the content well
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are from the past 20 years, though given the topic and its origins of discovery it is not out of the question to include citations from the early 1900s, which it does.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources seem fairly diverse, but it would not hurt to seek more sources to add anyway.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of them do, especially the ones for more recent sources, though a few don't work.

Sources and references evaluation
It will definitely help to bolster the number of citations, especially as sections are added.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The lead needs work, otherwise the main problem with the content is the technical writing of it.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that are obvious to me
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sections make sense, I believe it needs a few more.

Organization evaluation
The organization is fine and sets up a good framework for the addition of a few relevant sections. I feel that it could be reworded to be more accessible to a less technical audience.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images are relevant but could be moved around to better suit their relevance to the sections.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The caption for the punnet square could use some editing, and I think the caption for the pedigree would make more sense in the context of its own section.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They could placed in spots that are more relevant.

Images and media evaluation
My largest problem is placing them where relevant. For example, it makes more sense to place the punnet square with the Mendelian Inheritance section.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page seems pretty dead, the only activity since 2007 was the addition of some links in the citations. Most of the discussions were on the tone and technical language
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article has a "Start" rating and is of "Top" importance in the Genetics and Molecular and Cell Biology WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The talk page is mostly about the language being too technical and is not comparable to the way the topic is discussed in class.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page has not seen much activity and therefore is somewhat difficult to evaluate.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are in the amount of information available on it and the relative simplicity of the concepts, being something that is commonly taught in high school level biology classes.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article struggles in recognizing that these concepts are fairly simple and overload the article with technical descriptions.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it has a great start to it, but needs to be simplified and expanded upon.
 * I would say it has a great start to it, but needs to be simplified and expanded upon.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article has a great foundation, but needs to be reorganized and built up

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: