User:Dgruhm/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mathematical and theoretical biology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I find the implications of mathematics for biology to be an interesting topic that is not discussed often. Biology and math are both critical tools used to evaluate natural occurrences in everyday life. Learning how they intertwine with each other offers a deeper understanding of the natural processes that are taken for granted on a daily basis. My preliminary impression of this article is that it started out great with its use of references, but towards the end, specifically the "Model example" section, lacked citations. In the Talk section, I noticed users recommending merging with other categories such as "theoretical biology" and "computational biomodeling". I was unaware of the merging functionality that Wikipedia offers, so it is great to see the fluidity of scientific literature that is offered on the platform. I appreciate the feedback that users provide on such a dynamic topic as well. It is reassuring to see the care and thorough revision that have gone into this article.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section: The lead section provides an introductory statement that defines what is being discussed in the article. The remainder of the lead section gives a brief introduction to the topic described, which is discussed in further detail throughout the rest of the article. It is to the point without being overly detailed.

Content: The content of the article appears to be geared more towards people who have a strong understanding of the subject. I feel that it could go into more detail on many of the complex topics that it discusses. For example, the mathematical biophysics section is very short and lacks background, depth, and understanding. I appreciate that it offers hyperlinks to some of the key mathematical descriptions, but I would like to be able to read how they are applied to the context of this article other than the fact that mathematics is obviously inherent based on the article's title. The article does appear to be regularly updated, though, with the most recent edit occurring on July 7 at the time of this entry.

Tone and Balance: The tone of the article remains neutral throughout. It offers sound statements that maintain no obvious bias. I do not feel any attempts to be persuaded in any way.

Sources and References: The first half of the article appears to have adequate citations, but in key sections such as "Evolutionary biology" and "Model example: the cell cycle" a need for more citations is required. This lack of citation is noted in both the article and within the Talk sections. The citations listed appear to be relatively recent, with the majority of them being within ten years of publication. There are a few that are listed from the 1980s, but the great majority are from recent, credible sources that are referencing peer-reviewed articles, university-associated publications, and textbooks.

Organization and Writing Quality: The organization is fluid and easy to follow. There are no noticeable grammatical errors, and there is a noticeable effort to maintain a concise writing style.

Images and Media: The article offers two images. The first image offers a caption describing what the image has, while the second image does not have a caption but does have descriptors within the image to define what the graph is showing. I would like to see some more images directly associated with the article, but there are a number of terms that have descriptions and images hyperlinked that are viewable when you mouse over them. If you do not attempt to do this, however, you will never see the images, which can provide a lot of context and help with understanding.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page discussion highlights the need to add more citations. It also discusses merging with other topics. I also appreciate the occasional discussion to provide additional awareness to users on other subjects involved that are maybe not inherently necessary for the current version of the article, but it would be great to see some of the additional topics added into the discussion at some point. The article is associated with the following WikiProjects: Neuroscience (unrated), Biology (C-class), Molecular Biology / Genetics / COMPBIO (C-class), Systems (C-class), and Mathematics (C-class). The difference between the talk page of this article and those to which I have been exposed in class is that there are simple comments that do not necessarily contribute to anything. It shows the humility involved with the openly available forums.

Overall Impressions: Overall, I find this article to be a valuable source as an introduction to the topic that it discusses. I would like to see more descriptions of how some of the key topics influence the subject. For example, the "Algebraic biology" and "Complex systems biology" sections provide only a brief sentence as a description of the header but do not provide any discussion as to their application to the overarching subject of the article. I feel that the article discusses a subject that is relatively complex, so a majority of the supplemental information may be undiscovered or known by a select group of experts that do not use Wikipedia regularly. With that being said, as a working document, this article offers a good starting point to begin learning more about the subject. As the article continues to develop, I hope to see more detailed information added.