User:Gmehta2020/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: Molecular biology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Molecular Biology is the basis of a lot of a lot of diseases and molecular studies done in Biology relating to humans. It is important to know if this article is able to correctly give an overview of the topic as it may get a lot of views from people from all backgrounds.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The introduction is not able to clearly explain the topic. A big portion of the introduction is quoted from a journal article which does not clearly explain the definition of this field. It is also such a broad term that more explanation has to be made to introduce this topic. The lead also does not cover the topics that are discussed in the articles major section and includes information that is not covered in the article.
 * The introduction is not able to clearly explain the topic. A big portion of the introduction is quoted from a journal article which does not clearly explain the definition of this field. It is also such a broad term that more explanation has to be made to introduce this topic. The lead also does not cover the topics that are discussed in the articles major section and includes information that is not covered in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article’s content is relevant to the topic of Molecular Biology however, it is a vast topic and the article does not cover the topic in very much detail. Some of the content is a little outdated and could be updated with newer studies that have taken place more recently. There is content missing as the article does not contain major studies of Molecular Biology’s major role in current research and basis for a lot of studies being done.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is neutral and does not come across as biased in anyway.


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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The sources are current on the topic. They also have working links. A few sources do not directly relate to the topic and some others are not detailed enough. Some sources that are detailed are helpful but the necessary details from those sources are missing in this article.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is easy to read but not thorough. The information is not organized and only random information is picked. There are several major topics that are not covered and the information picked is also not organized in a way that would make it easy for the reader to read


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes images that help understand the article, they are clear and well captured but some of them could have bigger and more clear to understand especially the images that explain the different techniques.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is discussed well on the talk page. There are some interesting questions posed in the talk. There are some other areas of biochemistry that have similar terms and techniques performed. And there was some confusion about whether they belong here or in the biochemistry section. There is also a section where the information in the article has been corrected.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article can definitely be more detailed. And a lot more organized. The information picked to be published in this article is random and some very basic and important things are not covered. I would say the article is under developed. One way to improve the article to change the introduction to explain molecular biology is a more detailed manner. Also, there could be sub fields of molecular biology that could be listed. The images used to explain certain things could be better and clearer and should be explained more.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: