User:GrumpyButtons/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) High energy phosphate
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. --The article was given a rating of "Start".

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead is too broad and unsubstantiated and begins with an overview of different contexts the term "high energy phosphate" can be used in but this sounds like it is stemming from personal knowledge along with un-cited sources. The lead does not include a brief description of the article's main sections but instead jumps into presenting disjointed information without a clear direction behind it. The lead introduces a lot of information out of context that is not touched on again. The lead is incredibly over-specific but at the same time does not elaborate to the extent needed for clarity on these specificities.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
There is a large amount of detail about specific, irrelevant information. There is not a well established hierarchy of the importance of different informational pieces of this article. The two sources that are sighted in this article are from 1941 and 1988, it lacks citations and is very out of date. The desired structure of this article is so unclear that every piece of knowledge feels out of place, there is not a good flow of ideas. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article notes that specific pieces of information are "of value", this is not neutral language. It does not possess much bias because it exists more as a litany of unsubstantiated facts. There are no competing viewpoints presented and there is not persuasion used.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Most facts are not cited. The two sources, not mentioned until the end of the article, are from an academic journal published in 1941 and a textbook published in 1988. There is a large excerpt taken directly from the textbook. There is no attention to diversity. Other wikipedia articles are frequently linked but some complex concepts that need a link are introduced without one. The link to the academic journal goes to the general journal itself and not the specific article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is written poorly, its overall structure is disjointed and unfocused and its sentence structure is awkward, occasionally presenting complex scientific information with colloquial speech that clearly shows the boundaries of the author's knowledge. Text is organized into short series of bullet points that don't need to be there. On the other hand, there are chunks of body text that need to be broken into bullet points.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There is only one table, the only information it contains is reactions involving high energy phosphates

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talking page is more informative than the article itself. There is a large discussion on why some of the concepts the article brings up are misleading. This article is rated a "start" and it a project of low importance. It is a part of the WikiProject Medicine. People in the talk section are discussing the paper in a collaborative way. There are those who are more knowledgeable on the topic but they do not lecture, just give input.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is very far from being complete, very underdeveloped. It is not afraid to present detailed information but this information needs to be thoroughly reorganized, elaborated on, and supported with current sources.

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: