User:DreamcatcherDog/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bioinformatics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This is probably an incredibly generic choice but it is the basis for this class. Additionally this matters because bioinformatics is a growing and increasingly applicable field in biology. Overall the article seems to be thorough, giving facts without being bias and giving more focus to the important ideas.

Evaluate the article
Generally the introduction starts off with a thorough definition of bioinformatics and a general overview of what is in the article. Considering the broad nature of the topic the intro is the most concise it can be and there is nothing in it that is not also in the article.

The content is relevant to bioinformatics and the subcategories that go with it. Additionally the information seems to be up to date and there does not seem to be any important information missing.

There don't seem to be any significant biases or any particular topics that are given unnecessary focus.

The article does have multiple sources, including ones that have been added recently (2022) as well as ones that are older, still important for understanding the history and origins of the information. The articles do seem to be credible, many are from sources such as NIH as well as the links sending the user to the right place and to actual articles.

Generally the images add to the understanding of the article, as well as being properly cited when necessary. Roughly half of the images are listed as a user's own work in which I am not sure if that is ideal or if finding an image from an article serves to demonstrate the point better. Regardless, the user images are still generally accurate and do still serve to help understand the article. Most of the images and graphs are well captioned though some do lack full captions though the less captioned images are generally more self explanatory such as a flow chart.

Looking through the talk page it looks like there was back and forth about both the possibility of being bias in regards to how the information was presented. Additionally in how things. could be organized, partially with sections being convoluted and unorganized, though it seems at least to a degree that these things had been changed.

The article is overall pretty comprehensive, though that would make sense as it is a well established article. As such I'm not sure if there are specific ways it can be improved beyond the general adding information as it becomes relevant in the field and improvements/advancements are made.