User:Hoppyokapi37/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

TATA box

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it was under the "gene expression" subset, which was under the "biochemistry" category. The TATA box matters because it helps tell transcription when to start, and mutations in this area can have severe repercussions. Just doing a quick look, this article seems well-organized and well-cited.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

I think the lead section is good, and fulfills the necessary criteria. I do think this section is quite detailed, but I don't think that's avoidable considering how complex the subject is. It seems like the content is relevant and up-to-date. It seems like the last citation was from 2017, so maybe there could be a few things to add since then, but I'm not familiar with how much the TATA box is still researched. The article seems neutral, which I don't think is difficult to do when you're just explaining a scientific concept. The sources and references also seem thorough and the few links I clicked on still worked. I don't know about diversity of authors given the time period in which the TATA box was discovered, but I think the current research additions have been diverse. The article is well-written and well-organized. I might've put the "features" section later in the article, but that's just personal preference. I do think the article could benefit from more pictures as this topic is difficult for non-STEM people to understand. This article is part of two WikiProjects, both from 2022 it seems, and has a rating of B class. There were a couple of conversations about timelines (ie did TATA or CAAT come first?) and a couple conversations nit-picking a few areas (ie DNA bending), and all conversations seemed to be fair and equal. Overall, I think this article is well done and is mostly up-to-date with current findings. I think it's a little science-heavy and could be put more into layman's terms, but all the information seems correct and well-cited.