User:Gapp18/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Chaperone-assisted selective autophagy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I felt like it needed more work to be added. This matters because this is ver detailed process and this article has the potential to have more information.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * In my opinion, I don't think it's a good first sentence. Although it gives you the definition of the process, I feel like it should have been leading a different way.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does but I would have organized it better. I would have started out with the process of autophagy and then going into depth about chaperone-assisted selective autophagy.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It could be more detailed because there are words that contribute to the topic but need some background information before being brought up. For example ubiquitin.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Some of the content is relevant but not explained why it's relevant. It's mainly just facts but no reasoning to how it works. For example it talks about the Huntington's disease. but doesn't talk about how or why this happens and how it's connected to this type of autophagy.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * this article might be up to date but I don't believe so because there needs to be more research done.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the articles were from science direct which is a reliable source
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * they work

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Me personally, I got confused kind of everywhere because there is no background information on some things.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * N/A
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * it is broken down into sections but the sections are very small in my opinion, could have more length

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * This article does not have any images to explain or show the topic
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I would honestly give it a 5/10. it has more potential to become a better article and display more
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * A strength that I found was that it talked about the different types of chaperones and linked them
 * How can the article be improved?
 * more details need to be included and explained.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * it is poorly developed in my opinion.