User:JosephB27/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
DNA sequencer

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because DNA sequencers are very important to Bioinformatics since they are the machines that sequence DNA.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is strong overall as it does well in introducing the article and summarising what the article is about. It can still be improved by removing parts of the lead section as it has an unnecessary amount of details. Especially the last paragraph of the lead section as it goes into too much detail about the issues of DNA sequencers.

The article's content is well balanced in content and only speaks of things that are related to the topic. The article is mostly up to date, but there are parts, such as prices per sequencing, which are difficult to keep fully up to date since it is constantly changing. The article could be improved by increasing the amount of content with more sections. The current sections do have enough content about the DNA sequencers. Someone in the talk section suggested sections about how the technology has improved and the future technology that is being developed. Adding sections like the previously mentioned would greatly increase the quality of this article as it is a bit light in content.

The article does well to stay neutral and shows no biased between the sequencing machines. The article does well to use facts to show the pros and cons of different sequencing machines. The sources that the article used were unbiased and the links that I checked worked. However, some of the sources could be updated as some of the information about the machines was not current.

The sections of the article were well written and organized. The images do little to improve the actual article. All images are different sequencing machines that were used, but adding something like a timeline of the different DNA sequences and when they were developed could add the article more. While it is nice to see what the DNA sequencers look like, none of them help to understand the reader about the topic.

The current article as a whole does well with the content it already has. The main problem is there is a lack of content covering the topic as a whole and some of the current content could be used with updating. The article appears like it was worked on many years ago, but was never finished.