User:Inuriwiki/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: Gel electrophoresis of proteins
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: It is the most recent topic that was discussed in our biochemistry lab, and I would like further expand of the mechanisms behind it.

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
It follows Wikipedia format by including bolding in the beginning of paragraph and hyperlinks to several other articles. The introduction is concise on the purpose behind protein electrophoresis, what happens during gel electrophoresis, and several mediums that are used when separating proteins. All the information in the Lead is further expanded in the following paragraphs in a concise and clear fashion - not overly detailed.

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

Content evaluation
The content emphasis about denaturing gel methods, native gel methods, buffer systems, visualization and medical applications that are each expanded through sub-topics. Based on the reference section, most of the cited sources are from the late 1990s to early 2000s, except for one source being in from an article published on 2012. All content is relevant to topic, and no misleading or missing information is seen. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's quality gaps such as underrepresented populations or topics.

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
In certain instances, the article doesn't not remain neutral. In the Native gel methods section by listing potential disadvantages for each gel type. For example, it mentions the disadvantage of using a BN-PAGE because "...Coomassie binding to proteins it can act like a detergent causing complexes to dissociate. Another drawback is the potential quenching of chemoluminescence ..." However, they do not cite these claims as factual, persuades the reader to favor one gel over another.

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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Majority of the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources such as Science Direct and PubMed, but several opinionated claims lack appropriate citations. The sources provided are from the late 1990s to early 2000s, with the most current one being published in 2012. There are collectively diverse array of authors, except for Schägger H and Von Jagow G whom have two articles referenced on this page. Many of the hyperlinks in red do not work such as counterelectrophoresis and Azure Biosystems.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The article defintely has good consistency and easy to read thanks to the hyperlinks provided. No known grammatical or spelling errors are shown in this article. The article is well-organized because it breaks down the major points and its subtopics into sections.

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 includes a total of three images that give a better understanding of protein electrophoresis. Each image is captioned with a minor description on what is seen. These images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are visually appealing.

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
Several of the conversation include of explaining more about denaturing proteins, types of gels used for gel-electrophoresis disadvantages mostly, buffer system and medical applications. No known rating is shown, and it's not part of WikiProjects. It's defintely different from how professors explain a topic because there are more dense used of terminologies.

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
Overall the article has good consistency and an appropriately arranged the subtopics through relevancy. Several opinionated information were included, that should be proven factually by adding citations so that some who is unaware with the topic understands where the disagreement is coming from. The references are a bit outdated, and most of the articles have difficulty getting access to. But personally, it's defintely a well-developed article that needs a little bit more editing.

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:Gel electrophoresis of proteins