User:Katrinadiel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Genetic epidemiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because I am interested in the topic, and possibly am considering genetic epidemiology type research for future PhD studies.

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION: I like how it starts off with a definition of the "-ology" meaning "study of_____". I think it is a good introduction, however, becomes repetitive in the following section entitled "definition." Possible, these could be combined into one lead section.

CONTENT:

I think it is a good start, however, it needs to definitely go more specifically into the topic as it is truly just a broad overview. I feel like too many direct quotes were used, when they could have just summarized. This took away form the piece, as it made it feel choppy. It would be nice if they expanded on what type of family and population studies are conducted to study genetic epidemiology, and cite those sources. They could add a section on what types of diseases are most related to this methodology or study. Give examples of specific research, and then related it to the broader, global purpose.

TONE AND BALANCE:

The tone is fairly professional, when direct quotes are not used. Again, I think the number of direct quoted text needs to decrease, as it gives a childlike quality to it. Rather, it could be stated in a third person tense and attributed to the original author or speaker.

SOURCES:

They site a medical journal, an epigigentic journal, and an article form the department of health and human services. It would be nice if future additional sources included more review articles analyzing types of genetic epidemiology research studies, and if more recent sources were cited.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY:

Besides the number of direct quotes previously discussed, the writing quality as a whole varied. The "Fundamentals" section had a more professional, third-party tone to it, whereas the "History" section almost made it obvious a separate author wrote it. I do appreciate the number of hyperlinks to other Wiki pages that are present in all sections of the article. It was consistent and could be useful to readers with limited experience in the history of genetics.

IMAGES:

There are no images present.

TALK PAGE:

The authors who worked on this did not communicate their plans or intentions for the piece. The only comment is from September 2021, where someone notes that an entire portion of text appears to be directly copied from a website, and questions if this qualifies as a copyright violation.

OVERALL IMPRESSION:

An incredibly important topic to discuss, that as of right now, has not been done justice by what is presently on the page.