User:FrancescaD2020/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Salting Out
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The article discusses an aspect of a laboratory technique that we performed in the lab #2 series. It is rated as "Start-Class" so many improvements can be made.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Generally concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead reads like a brief introduction to the concept. The lead would be improved by simplifying the language in layman's terms.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? It seems that the most recent reference is from 2014.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation
Content could be improved with more recent references as well as more thorough discussion of uses.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is balanced, the tone is neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, some reference textbooks and one is Cengage, which is a dead link.
 * Are the sources current? Most recent is from 2014.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No, some links that connect to Cengage or other textbook sources are dead.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources could be improved by adding a couple more up-to-date references, and removing dead links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, though each section would be improved with representative images.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
Organization is fine.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
The page could be improved by adding relevant images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Comments on the need to improve the article, and a discussion about how the article needs to remain broad so as not to exclude any method of "salting out."
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a part of WikiProject Chemistry & WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. It is rated "Start" in both projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It discusses it broadly, but otherwise follows class discussion.

Talk page evaluation
Some comments are present, but seem old. Last couple editors made promises to clean up and improve page, but intended to do it down the line.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Decent, but can definitely be improved.
 * What are the article's strengths? Its general organization.
 * How can the article be improved? By cleaning up the writing the in the principles and providing up-to-date references and images.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-developed, just needs to be improved.

Overall evaluation
See above comments.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: