User:Gracey099/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: Genome(link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence clearly and concisely indicated the article's topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead included a brief definition of the key terms that were part of the article's major section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the lead was present in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very simple and introduces the major topic of the article

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is an explanation to the topic in a more detailed way.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is up to date. Nearly half of the content is backed-up by post 2010 articles and texts.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The contents seem fine, nothing seems to be extra, but could used some extra content in detail.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the topic is not related to the equity gaps nor is it related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral and the publisher wrote the article in the third person point of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article didn't state any claims or opinions, it's comprised of facts and explanation about the key word in describing the article's theme.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article is very neutral, the publisher only explained what was necessary for his article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There's no opinion or stand in the article, it is solely an informational article about the topic of interest.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All given facts in the article were either backed-up by Wikipedia or by textbooks with citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources were thorough and there were many sources to reflect on which implements that this topic is studies in depth.
 * Are the sources current? Some of the sources are current while some date back to 20+ years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources came from a variety of publisher/writers and some includes historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links that I've clicked on so far worked perfectly fine.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is well written but I think it can be more detailed and concise because it seem to be simple description rather than a detailed source with thorough explanation.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors spotted so far.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is well organized and the subsections made perfect sense under the certain sections they were placed in.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has a few pictures but it can have a bit more picture, for example, one or two picture per section.
 * Are images well-captioned? The pictures were nicely captioned but the captions can be a little more precise.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? All of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images were laid out fine but not really visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? In the talk page, all of the conversations were related to the possible improvement to make the article better.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is related to the wikiproject Genetics. It was part of academic disciplines.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The way Wikipedia discuss a topic from broad topic to subtopics which is really similar to what most classed teach.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It seems to be 70% complete, details and pictures/graphs can be added to further improve the article.
 * What are the article's strengths? The strength is the breakdown of the article, it is well organized according to categories.
 * How can the article be improved? It would be best to add more detailed explanations to the topic's categories and subcategories along with some pictures that clearly supports what the categories were talking about. This way will enhance the learning of the article because pictures sometimes can support facts better than over explanation.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped, It can use some work to make the article better, more accurate and precise about the topic.

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: