User:IntheChemistry/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:Ancient DNA
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The methods developed to decipher and recreate ancient DNA can be used for contemporary purposes for modern DNA. By looking back into the structure of ancient DNA of past organisms many insightful discoveries can possibly be made regarding the state of the earth at that period in time as well as possibly recreating an extinct organism.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

- It does, the introductory sentence explains what ancient DNA is by stating that its DNA that has been retrieved and isolated from organisms that have long since gone extinct.

- It does it mentions a sentence regarding each major section in the table of contents including the problems and errors with deciphering and acquiring ancient DNA and how previous ancient DNA has been acquired.

- No, every sentence in the lead is mentioned and supported by the rest of the article.

- The lead is concise and a sufficient length in comparison to the rest of the information presented in the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

- The articles content is relevant to the topic as all the topics covered within the article were alluded to in the lead of the article.

- The articles content is up to date as the latest source referenced is from 2018.

- Although the article doesn't seem to have content that is missing or does not belong, an updated section in the history of ancient DNA would benefit the article considering the 3 other subheadings are 10 years apart in terms of information presented within. Another subsection called 2010's should be added with any major advancements or minor advancements made in the field of ancient DNA.

- It does not.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

- The article is in a neutral tone.

- There are no claims which heavily influence the reader to believe a particular ideology.

- There are none.

- It does not attempt to persuade the reader towards any direction.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

- All the facts appear to be backed by peer reviewed articles or reputable sources.

- They are thorough as the most recent source appears to be from 2018.

- They are current.

- They are written by a diverse set of authors.

-The links for sources 4, 44, 50 and 66 all work


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

-The article is well written and provides concise, clear and adequate information relevant to the topic. The article is kept up to date as the latest entry in the talk section of the article was updated in July 2020.

- It does not.

- The article is well organized beginning with the history of aDNA separated by 10 year intervals, followed by problems and errors that result from the methods used to isolate ancient DNA such as PCR and ending with notable researchers in the field.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

- The article contains a single image but the caption underneath doesn't explain sufficiently what is being seen in the image. If possible more images perhaps concerning the types of post-mortem modifications to aDNA as well as images concerning PCR could be included.

- The image is not captioned as properly as it should be. Perhaps clarity could be increased by signaling which portion of the picture is the DNA that has been crosslinked. and what the dark circle above the 2 strands of what are most likely the aDNA strands is.

- They do.

- They are.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

- The conversations occurring in the talk section of the article refer to corrections of terms used such as antediluvian which has religious connotation as well as the modifications to the section under 1990's discoveries/history which was previously written more like a blog post rather than an accumulation of achievements made in that decade in the field of aDNA.

- The article is rated C class and is part of 2 active WikiProjects, WikiProjects Genetics and Wiki Projects Molecular and Cell Biology.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

- The articles current status is part of Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment programs and the current student editor is Arina Clavel and the peer reviewer is IntheChemsitry.

- The article is concise, easy to read and provides sufficient information given the nature of the topic. The article contains up to date information regarding the topic as shown by the latest source being from 2018. It also provides appropriate links to other topics which can help to expand the readers understanding aDNA and the techniques used to isolate and increase concentration of the aDNA such as PCR.

-The article could be improved by adding more images with more detailed captions as well as including another section on the discoveries of the 2010's.

- The article is not yet complete as information and discoveries regarding the topic of aDNA gets published regularly thus requiring the article to be updated regularly as well however the article as it stands is very informative and provides sufficient information for the reader to begin their own investigation and studies into the topic aDNA. The article is very well developed.


 * 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 is overall very well written and provides relevant and up to date information on the topic of aDNA. The sources all seem to work and provide the appropriate link to the articles cited. However the article would benefit from more images as well as another section on aDNA discoveries in the 2010's.

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: