User:Ivicentelare2020/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) Molecular genetics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen it because it is a relevant topic for my class and my masters. It is also a relatively new area and people are not entirely familiar with this term, so the more complete and revised this topic is, the more people are going to understand it.

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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would suggest to add some examples so people can understand better what molecular genetics is about. Also, in my opinion it is missing a paragraph addressing the differences between classical genetics, molecular biology and molecular genetics. Most of the people think they are the same thing and they come to this site looking for the differences between the three of them.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there are several statements that do not have citations and would require them.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Needs more citations but the ones that appear on the text are good.
 * Are the sources current? Most of them are, all of them except one were published after 2000's, to the latest of 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are 19 cites and all from different authors. I am not in the position to know if it includes historically marginalized individuals or not.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read and the main idea is well-explained, but in my opinion it can be more clear as well as more concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I have not noticed any errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Molecular genetics is so broad that this article only focuses on two techniques and lists the other related topics. Therefore, it is well-organized, but with poor content. Needs further work.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image representing the forward genetics but it would help more if another image for reverse genetics was added as well, so people can see the differences more visually.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is only one image but it fits perfectly. However, more images are needed.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Most of the comments are from 2007 and he did not replied back to any of them. However, he changed some of the statements and corrected the mistakes the professor told him to, but it is still missing some depth in content. He also deleted the statement about gene therapy instead of reference it, as his professor suggested.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as C-class but with top- importance. It is part of a WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class we have talk a little more about what molecular genetics really mean and the different techniques there are.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is a C-class article
 * What are the article's strengths? It explains the basis of molecular genetics well enough so viewers can get the idea. The "see also" section is very useful because it is pretty complete and can lead to other relative information.
 * How can the article be improved? As I said before, I would add a picture for reverse genetics and a little more content on the lead. It is also stated that "it needs additional citations for verification", which I agree.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would categorized it as underdeveloped just because he can add more content to it. Everything the author explained was clear and I think he did a good job, it just needs a little more work.

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: