User:IanKloss/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.


 * Synaptic vesicle
 * To be honest, this is the first thing I thought of.

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 seems good, since it's clear and fairly concise. It doesn't really outline the sections that are presented later, unless you count the table of contents.

The part about how many synaptic vesicles can be released in ten minutes and the part about the average size of synaptic vesicles in the visual cortex seem like they could go in later sections. Then again, these might be okay in the lead since the rate of vesicle release and the size of vesicles are things you might want to know "right away."

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?

Content evaluation
All of the content presented seems relevant. It gives a good description of the components of synaptic vesicles and the process by which they move around the neuron and complete their work. There doesn't seem to be any extraneous or inappropriate content, although if there is content missing or that could be more up to date I couldn't say.

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
I don't see anything that seems biased, or any qualitative statements that can't be fact-checked.

One possible exception? The history section (last sentence) mentions "an important step forward" in vesicle research, but I'm not sure there's anything wrong with this. Would it be more appropriate for them to simply say that the discovery "advanced" the research rather than saying it was important?

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are actually a few statements that look like they need citations. For instance, in the Endocytosis subsection of the Synaptic Vesicle Cycle section the statement "however, other studies have been compiling evidence suggesting that this type of fusion and endocytosis is not always the case," appears without an accompanying citation. Similarly, the first paragraph in the Modulation subsection of the Vesicle Recycling section lacks a citation.

The reference section spans a wide range of dates, from the 50's up through 2018. This seems like a good sign, although I don't know the literature such that I would recognize it if something were missing.

I checked several of the Wiki-links in the body text and several of the links in the reference section and they all worked.

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 structure of the article is easy enough to follow, and the prose is straightforward (although hard for me to grasp because of the abundance of unfamiliar biology terms). If I knew more about biology, I think it would be a pretty easy read.

I didn't find any grammar or spelling problems.

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 two illustrations were well chosen and captioned.

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
This article is part of the WikiProjects Physiology, Neuroscience, and Molecular and Cell Biology. The Neuroscience WikiProject is rated B-Class, High-Importance, and the other two are rated B-Class, Mid-Importance.

This article's Talk page is sparse. In 2008 a user suggested adding a section on the synaptic vesicle cycle (and apparently did so). In 2007 a user asked if it would be okay to add a section on synaptic vesicle histology and anther user encouraged them. Looking at the edit history, it looks like the original poster is now inactive and only made one minor edit to this article. This article has had tons of editors since 2004, although a lot of what is shown is bot activity (I suspect this is normal).

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
If I understand the rating system correctly, this is a B-Class article. It provides considerable detail and seems well-structured and clearly written.

It does, however, appear to be missing at least two citations.

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: