User:Immcarle106/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) Immunogenicity
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I'm interested in the scenario where the individual is actually able to develop antibodies against therapeutic antigen, especially against monoclonal antibodies.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes(?) It only has one method of how biotherapy is predicting the immunogenic potential of novel protein therapeutics. Additionally, one of my issues is that it discusses unwanted and wanted immunogenicity but it does not then make separate sections about it, which I feel like could be a mistake. Personally, that is something I'm very interested in and wish there was a section on
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise!

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise. However, it lacks information on the unwanted and wanted immunogenicity forms. For instance, I wish that the article had sections on those things alone because each seemed pretty major. Otherwise, the lead does a good job describing the major sections the article has listed.

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
The article's content is relatively up-to-date, recently being edited on December and having an article from 2018. Some content that does seem to be missing is the antigens section. Although I understand these are only characteristics, it seems like either they should further describe the significance of each characteristic, or put this only as a sub header rather than having its own header because it is very bare bones at the moment. One of my issues was actually it has D-amino acids listed under "Degradability (ability to be processed & presented to T cells)." However, the link does not direct to D-amino acids, just amino acids in general.

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 tone seems to very neutral; no viewpoint is overrepresented or underrepresented.

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
One of the references is https://www.e-i-p.eu/. I am not really sure what I am supposed to get out of this source. It is only a website about the European Immunogenicity Platform and their plans and social events. The rest of the sources either link to a textbook or an article from a journal about Immunogenicity which is good. They all work.

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 relatively well-written. For me, it was easy to read, concise, and clear. There are no grammatical errors as I can see. There is no spelling errors. However, under chemical composition heterogeneity subheader of header antigens, it has something called aa polymer. Not sure if that was a spelling mistake or actually something that exists; this is especially because there is no Wikipedia page associated with "aa polymer."

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 article contains no image; therefore, I can not articulate whether or not an image would enhance my understanding of this topic given I have no experience with images related to Immunogenicity.

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 article is part of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. It is a start-class article with medium level importance. Haven't discussed Immunogenicity in class yet. It is being transwikied to Wiktionary

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's strengths thus far is that it is very organized with most sections covering important information mentioned in the lead. Additionally, syntax and diction seem appropriate and unbiased. The article's overall status seems still to be pretty bare bones, but it has a lot more information than a stub. Its lead is very concise as well, but the article still lacks pictures, which could help clarify or improve the reader's understanding of immunogenicity. Furthermore, it also lacks many citations, and it seems that it could use more up-to-date information as it only has one reference from 2018. The talk page did not really present much information either.

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:Immunogenicity