User:EmoVis/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Polymerase chain reaction

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 choose this article because it's related to concepts and experiments covered in both my biochemistry lecture and lab courses respectively. The technique described in this article is very valuable as it can be used in conjunction with other methods to generate vast genetic libraries of various DNA molecules containing particular genes of interest. Of course this is only a small part of its many and potential uses. My preliminary impression of the article was that it's surprisingly detailed as my interest was drawn into sections such as the variations of PCR section.

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 section begins with a straight to the point sentence describing what PCR is which is allows reader to pinpoint the topic. Polymerase chain reaction is even bolded for emphasis. For the most part from reading this section, you get a feel of what is to come. However I did not see a mention of the section on variations of PCR. Given what can be said on this technique the lead section is reasonably and sufficiently detailed for the article.

Content: According to the history of the article, it is updated frequently with the last update being on March 7. Certain sections like procedure and variations of PCR are longer than others, however this length seems to be appropriate for these sections. Many aspects of PCR are covered from principles to its strengths plus weaknesses.

Tone and Balance: The tone and balance of this article is neutral. There is a section about patent disputes which just presents the context behind the disputes which is good.

References: There is large amount of sources and references in this article. While an extensive investigation can be done for each source, for the most part sources I clicked on were working and were peer-reviewed publications.

Organization and Writing Quality: Overall organization is good and easy to read. Sections actually flow into the next rather well.

Images and Media: Diagrams of PCR procedure are well labeled and very well help to enhance topic understanding for visual learners such as myself. Every image when appropriate possesses a caption and furthermore the caption length varies when appropriate.

Talk Page Discussion: Conversations on expanding applications as well as use of more clearer images have been brought up in the Talk page. The discussions are polite and open with contributors responding as soon as they can. From what I have seen there has not been activity discouraging others ideas but rather attempts to understand them.

Overall Impressions: I would say this article is well-developed and is well off in the sense of where to go next.

EmoVis (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)