User:Hannahkbaker/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.


 * Genetic engineering: Genetic engineering
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because genetic engineering is a widely disputed subject in today's society.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it defines the term genetic engineering.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it mostly introduces the history of genetic engineering and its role in agriculture, but does not include a preface to the controversy of medical application.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it includes most of what is discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the Lead is overly detailed. It talks about the history of the process and includes elevated discussion about the scientific background. That information would be best included in the associated subcategory of the article.

Lead evaluation
I believe the Lead is a bit lengthy and detailed. Instead of including a brief overview of all of the topics to be discussed, it spends a lot of the time focusing on two topics in depth.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article content describe the role of genetic engineering in today's society.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it includes references from late 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not believe the subcategory on pop culture is necessary.

Content evaluation
I believe there is a bit too much content on this topic. If I were to address this topic I would include its history, procedure, and role in the world today. I feel as though it evaluates it in the context of too many realms - agriculture, medicine, research, industrial, etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article maintains a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article maintained an overall neutral tone without adding room for potential biases.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they include many references.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? They range from the early 2000s-2018.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
They include many references (214) which in my opinion is quite a lot.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part it is easy to read. It jumps around a bit, particularly in the Lead section.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I believe it could've been more concise and shorter. It includes many topics that lead the reader in many different directions.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes they include images of what is being discussed in that particular section.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes they provide an accurate representation for the picture.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
The images support the text and are relevant to the topic.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk consists of how the article is portraying genetic engineering in a negative light instead of being open to both viewpoints. There is also talk that genetic engineering occurs in nature too - not just by man.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated class and high-importance. It is of interest to 8 WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There are a few sentences in the talk page that seem emotionally driven.

Talk page evaluation
There are a few users that believe the article is painting genetic engineering in a negative light. This article is of interest to many though.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? Its status is good overall and rated GA-class.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article strengths are many points and references, and a neutral tone.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by focusing on less topics and maintaining a better sense of organization.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed by including many references and appropriate edits.

Overall evaluation
The article is well thought out and includes many articles of reference. It is written with a neutral tone and provides many instances of genetic engineering that are relevant.

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: