User:Immcarle180/Choose an Article

Article Chosen for the Project
NLRP

Evaluation of the Page
Exercise taken from the Wikipedia Evaluation exercise from 1/17 (I chose NLRP for that exercise)

Lead section

There is a lead section that describes what the article is about (explains briefly what NLRPs are). The lead section includes some information about some of the sections. It briefly talked about NLRP's role in the innate immune system, which was not expanded upon as much in subsequent sections.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic at hand. However, all of the references are from sources dating to before 2013, meaning the information in this article must be updated with more recent information. As for what content is missing, I am not sure yet, as I do not have a full understanding of NLRPs. It does not deal with equity gaps.

Tone and balance

The article is written in a neutral manner. No viewpoints are favored over others.

Sources and references

As mentioned above, the sources were all published before 2013, meaning the information in the article is most likely outdated to some degree. It appears as though everything is backed up by a source. Most, if not all of the sources are from academic journals, so it is likely that the references do not include a diverse spectrum of authors. There are articles that were published more recently, but many of these articles specifically target NLRP3. The links to the sources work!

Organization and writing quality

Overall, the article is well-written. There were a few minor grammatical errors that can (and will) be changed, but these errors do not take away from the dissemination of the information. The article is broken up into several sections. This provides a simple way to organize the information.

Images and media

There are no images in this article. Therefore, it would be helpful to find a photo/model of NLRP to include in this article so that readers can visualize the structure of the protein (especially since the article briefly discusses the structure of the proteins).

Talk discussion page

There is not much on the talk discussion page, aside from a comment from an individual from Carleton describing what should be fixed. There are no ratings on this page (although I remember seeing ratings for this page elsewhere). It is part of the Wikiproject Molecular and Cell Biology.

Overall

I think this paper is at a good starting point, but the information needs to be updated, and there needs to be more information that is from the last few years. I think the article separates the information into clear sections, which helps to sort the functions and structure of the protein. I wouldn't say the article is underdeveloped, but it most certainly needs to be augmented with more information.

Note: Critique of what to be added has already been added to the Talk page as well.