User:Eepygirl/Evaluate an Article


 * done on November 16, but I didn't see this sandbox/it wasn't publishing properly when I initially made this part of the assignment. Please see version history in this Google Document for proof, but content is also pasted below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y32CcW0yGwkJf63RCBZUclIedTxNvj4vZO98WSeULCo/edit?usp=sharing **

Which article are you evaluating?
Cameleon (protein)

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.)

While searching through the "Academic Disciplines" link provided in the tutorial, I looked for Biochemistry related articles. Bioluminescence has been a topic of interest to me since I first learned about the discovery of the green fluorescent protein (GFP) as a junior in high school, so I searched through any related articles on that. This article is about an engineered bioluminescent protein based on a variant of GFP, which I have never heard about before. It sounded like an important progression in the field of protein engineering and biochemistry, so I took an interest in it. My primary impression of the article is that it was quite short, perhaps because not much further study has been conducted on this protein.

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 does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, which in this case is the engineered Cameleon protein. It proceeds to briefly explain the protein's function, who created it, where its name was derived from, where it is useful, and how it was created. This article as a whole is substantially short, only consisting of the lead section and an addition "Mechanism" section, so it doesn't exactly include a brief description of the article's major sections. For this reason, it also includes a substantial amount of information in the lead section. However, it is still quite concise.

Content:

The article's content is relevant to the topic, talking specifically about the features of the Cameleon protein. The last edit on this page was on August 24, 2021, which is fairly recent. This information is likely up-to-date. If I conduct a Google search of this protein, the most recent articles about it pop up from 2020. I do not believe there is content that does not belong, but it may be possible that more recent experiments have been conducted about this protein that might have observed new findings or details that are not yet included in this article. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, but it may address part of Wikipedia's equity gaps in access to academic topics, as this protein is a part of biochemical studies.

Tone and Balance:

The article is written with a neutral tone. There are no claims that are biased, nor is there

any sort of opinionated claim in general.

Sources and References:

All the facts in this article are backed by articles published in scientific journals. All links in the references link to open access PDF articles that anyone can read for themselves, and they are thorough with providing background on the proteins, as well as what they have been used for in studies. The named authors include scientists from Japan and the United States. Scientific journals like this may not commonly be written by a "diverse spectrum of authors," as it involves knowing who has the funding or access to be able to publish such experiments. There are more peer-reviewed articles available regarding the cameleon protein, but no news coverage or random commercial websites are included in these references.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is concise, clear, and easy to read. There are no grammatical or spelling errors, and it is well-organized for the amount of content it contains.

Images and Media:

There are no pictures included in this article.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is only one conversation in the talk page of this article, addressing a capitalization issue with referring to Cameleons as CaMeleons. This was noted because calmodulin is referred to as CaM, but Cameleons aren't commonly referred to as CaMeleons, even in one of the journal article sources. This resulted in an edit to the article where the capitalization was edited. This article is a part of WikiProject Neuroscience, and is rated as Stub-class on the content assessment scale and Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. It is also a part of WikiProject Molecular Biology with the same rating as WikiProject Neuroscience. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we have discussed it in class because in class, the focus is more in the social aspect (eg. who wrote the article/sources, who they're writing about, etc.), while Wikipedia categorizes its quality as an article within the context of a particular project/subject.

Overall Impressions:

I believe this article is complete, concise, and accurate. A strength it has is that it contains likely all of the major and most recent information about the Cameleon protein in an easy to read and understand way. With future research, if any is done, this article can certainly be developed further. I think it could be added to in terms of further background information on how this protein was specifically developed and why, as well as its current uses in research projects, but it otherwise includes a good amount of essential information describing the protein.