User:Gsangiuliano24/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: Acetylcholine
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This past week our class discussed cholinergic agonists and antagonists. I thought it would be beneficial to evaluate an article on Acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter involved in these pathways.

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
Overall, the lead could have done a better job at broadly defining acetylcholine and introducing the major sections. The lead sentence was verbose, generalizing the term without giving a concise information. While, the Lead attempts to bring up most of the major sections, such as acetylcholine's composition and function as a neurotransmitter in the CNS and PNS, it neglects to introduce all of them. Interestingly, the Lead does introduce some information, such as acetylcholine's non-neural origins, which is not addressed again in the article. I would have liked to have seen a better definition of acetylcholine and concrete descriptions of the major sections without delving into too much detail.

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
The content is relevant and up-to-date. It would benefit from expanding upon content presented. For example, the article lightly introduces Acetylcholine synthesis, but does not thoroughly discuss storage, transport and release to the synaptic cleft. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps nor address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

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
The article is apparently neutral. There did not appear to be any outrageous or heavily biased claims made by the author/s, but there were insufficient references. This made me question the validity of most of the article.

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
The major drawback to this article is the lack of sources and references. There are several major sections in the article that neglect to have even one citation for several paragraphs. This includes the Chemistry, Cellular Effects, Autonomic Nervous System, Myasthenia Gravis, Pharmacology and its receptor subheadings. Surprisingly, there are 32 sources included. Over half of the sources were prior to 2000. Those written within the past 20 years comprised equal parts research reviews, primary research articles, and book references. The references seem inclusive, based on the multicultural backgrounds of the contributing researchers.

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's content is diminished by its organization style. The author tends to speak in a passive versus active tone. They should remove redundancies by only briefing introducing the topic once in the Lead then again in the appropriate subsection. For example, information regarding nicotine and muscarinic receptors should be moved under their respective subheadings instead of under "Cellular Effects." There were no witnessed grammatical or spelling errors.

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
The images are helpful additions to the article on Acetylcholine. They are position in correspondence to the information presented. Some subheadings are more informative than others, but all include enough for comprehension. I am not sure if all of the photos adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Some images are referenced as "Own Source" instead of a typical primary notable source.

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 talk page is diverse. It has discussions on adding material, editing present material, and correcting sources. The article is listed as a level-5 vital article and rated as a B-I Class. It is not apart of any WikiProjects. Wikipedia discusses Acetylcholine differently than we have in class. They attempt to discuss how it relates to a variety of disorders and involvement with memory.

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 listed as a level-5 vital article and rated as a B-I Class. The article's content is its major strength. The article would benefit from reorganization and additional references.

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:Talk:Acetylcholine