User:Danstrib/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: Argonaute
 * Reason for choosing: This article is related to genetics, and is a protein that can potentially be used in therapeutic gene silencing treatments that may be used in human populations. This would leading to questions of the ethics of its use.

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?

==== The lead for this article does a good job at concisely describing the topic of the article, and touches upon a few details that are included later in the article. However it also presents information that is not present elsewhere in the article and does not refer to several article subsections. Thus there is room for improvement. ====

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?

==== The article's content is directly relevant to the topic, primarily describing the function of the Argonaute Protein in the the RNAi interference pathway. The content is up to date and includes recent interesting developments regarding the scientific use of the Ago protein. There is opportunity for this article to include further history on its discovery and naming, and to increase the level of relevant detail about the topic. ====

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?

==== The article is primarily neutral in its descriptiveness and avoids bias in its information towards a particular viewpoint. There are not any viewpoints that are specifically over or under-represented. There is no evident persuasion in the article. ====

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?

==== Some of the sections of the article have infrequent or unclear attribution for sources, and could be further reinforced with source information. The sources reflect major findings about the topics, but are somewhat dated and a broader representation of the field would be possible. The few tested links seem to work correctly. ====

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?

==== The article is primarily well written, but a few opportunities could exist for increased clarification and removal of minor grammatical errors. The organization of the article makes intuitive sense and is well-divided. ====

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?

==== Images of the Ago protein and of the relevant pathways in which it acts provide an appealing complement to the descriptive text, and are well captioned. The images appear to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright regulations. ====

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?

==== The article is part of two WikiProjects: Genetics, and Molecular and Cellular Biology. It is ranked as "low" importance, and has a C-rating. The talk page is relatively sparse, and its most recent conversation contribution was made in 2017. ====

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, the article provides a decent amount of data on its topic, the Argonaute protein. However recent advances in the field are poorly reflected in the page. The article could be improved by some minor restructuring and edits to grammar and spelling, as well as an increase in the detail of recent advancements. Overall I would rate the article as poorly/moderately developed, as it contains an informative amount of content but has not had a significant amount of recent maintenance or development. ====

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: Argonaute