User:Denisej 2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dopaminergic pathways

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I have an interest in dopaminergic pathways particularly for future research. This topic is important because dopaminergic pathways are an underlying factor in a lot of processes and functions in the body, so I think it is important to have an accessible summary available of what it is and does. I also chose this article because it has a C-rating which means it needs a stronger overview and more reliability. While this topic was rated as having low-mid importance, I would hope that with more editor contributions the article rating could reflect the true importance of the topic.

Evaluate the article
 Lead Section: 

At first glance, the lead is well constructed and organized with a concise definition describing the general structure and function. It further breaks down the different dopaminergic pathways and what these pathways, in general, are associated with such as Parkinson's and ADHD. I thought this would be considered as a connection being made between disorders and the topic, but further in the article they aid in the explanation of the function of dopaminergic pathways. On the other hand, a hypothesis was stated using the topic and its association to Parkinson's and Tourette's syndrome but after checking the source I realized it was apart of the the information. The article did not go too far into detail about why they are connected but stated a theory that explains dopaminergic pathways. Still, I think that could be a potential issue in regard to making connections. Since a hypothesis is something that needs to be tested it may not serve as general information for dopaminergic pathways. For such a complex topic, the lead has enough detail that describes the components that should be in the article which are the major pathways and their functions; although it does not match with what is in the article. In the lead section it says that there are four major pathways, but under the "Major Pathways" subheading, six are listed. The lead lists two pathways as "other pathways" but in the "other pathways" subheading they are not listed. The lead also mentions specific enzymes essential in dopaminergic pathways but there is not further detail in the article but instead a section for "regulation". There was not particularly an allusion to regulation or much related to what was discussed in that section within the lead other than the mesolimbic pathway. So, while the lead is written in a concise manner, it does not align with the sections in the article.

 Content: 

The article's content mainly consists of various dopaminergic pathways which is exactly what the topic of the article is. A table is used to list and describe the six different pathways which was a good component to include. This made it easier to further organize the information that is explained in more detail through the other article sections. The following heading after the table is "Function" with subheadings for the mesocorticolimbic projection including the mesolimbic and mesocortical pathways listed in the table. It is practical to have a section simply for function because this needs more space for detail to describe what each pathway actually does. On the other hand, some of the pathways listed in the table do not have its own subheading under the function section. This could possibly make readers think the other pathways are not as important as the mesocorticolimbic projection. It could be a good edit adding more detailed sections for the other pathways to add balance. With more focus on the mesocorticolimbic projection it is less about the dopaminergic pathways in general.

 Tone and Balance: 

I do not think the article is neutral because like previously stated, there is a stronger emphasis on the mesolimbic and mesocortical pathways in comparison to the other pathways. Since these two pathways are under an "umbrella" term called the mesocorticolimbic projection it could be considered that there is a more substantial function over the others. Regardless, that is still not neutral because it makes that distinction rather than providing a balanced amount of information for all of the dopaminergic pathways. Since the topic is about dopaminergic pathways and not the mesocorticolimbic projection, the other pathways need more emphasis placed on their descriptions and functions. Under the table, there is a subheading of "Major pathways" and in addition to the mesocorticolimbic projection, the nigrostriatal, tuberoinfundibular, hypothalamospinal, and incertohypothalamic are listed under it. Considering that these are also major pathways it would align with the subheading to add more balanced information. In the "Function" section there is also a subheading for the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop which describes the pathways that were listed under the "other pathways" subheading in the previous section. This also contributes to the unbalance of the article because it seems that the headings and subheadings are not consistent with content from preceding sections.

 Sources and References: 

I think the article could also benefit from an addition of more current sources. A substantial amount of the sources are older than 10 years and which shows that some of the information may need to be updated or checked. It could be useful to look at more current sources and to compare to older sources to make sure the information is accurate or reliable. There is also at least one primary source used which is [34] on the reference list. While this source is one of the more current recent being from 2014, it is experimental study with a methods and materials section rather than a review of research that has been done by someone else. Aside from this, there are good sources used in this article that are peer reviewed and secondary sources. There are a mix of journals, textbooks, and archived sources used which shows that an effort was made to search for significant sources rather than ones that may not have reliable information. On the other hand, one of the sources being an archived webpage did seem to be unreliable because it may be hard for people to fact check if hard to find on other platforms. Reference [2] is an archived webpage from 2010. Although it is from an educational institution, it does not seem to be a journal or peer reviewed source. The cited definition that the source was referencing to could have a more accessible and reliable source because the definition is generalizable enough to rewrite using accurate information but from a better source.

 Organization and Writing Quality: 

The article is concise but it is not clear and easy to read due to the lack of consistency of headings, subheadings, and content. Like previously mentioned, the content in preceding sections do not anticipate what will be discussed further. The lead needs to outline the direction of the article more efficiently and the lack of balance in the article reflects the organization. Regarding the writing quality, appropriate grammar usage is displayed and the sentences are clear and easy to read aside from the overall content organization.

 Images and Media: 

There is one image used which is a map of the human brain to point out the dopaminergic pathways. This is a significant image since it locates the pathways in reference to other notable brain structures. This image is part of the lead section and has a caption as "the main dopaminergic pathways". The main dopaminergic pathways that are pointed out in the image are the four major ones listed in the lead. The wording of the caption could be more consistent with the description in the lead section by saying "the major dopaminergic pathways" or "the four major dopaminergic pathways" so that there is an understanding that those are still the same pathways being highlighted. Aside from this, the caption was thorough and explained how the pathways interconnect with other structures in the brain that are also in the image. The image also adheres to the copyright rules because the license is linked and is free use for sharing and adapting.

 Talk Page Discussion: 

On the Talk page there was a significant but controversial conversation happening about the reliability of the article because of information written in the article not aligning with the cited source. After checking the revision history it does seem this issue was resolved and corrected. This issue was corrected in 2017 and still remains on the article currently. Regarding the controversy, lack of respect and personal attacks seemed to be involved which could have been handled in a better manner to get the same result of corrected information. This article is C rated with low importance for the WikiProjects in anatomy and mid importance for the WikiProjects in neuroscience which shows this article needs more work.

 Overall Impressions: 

Overall, the article has a good foundation and topic, but is not reflected through the lack of organization and inconsistency. If the article was consistent with the lead then there could be a better outline. I think the lead is one of the article's strengths. It is concise and clear and states what could be better outlined and organized in the article. If I were to edit this article I think it could be a possibility to propose the idea of trying to make the sections and content align better with the lead. I think the article has potential to be well developed but it needs more consistent communication between editors to develop into a strong article. I think that it can be considered as still being in the development phase.