User:Katstudies/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.


 * History of biochemistry: (link)
 * I have chosen this article as I believe understanding the history of biochemistry is necessary to begin understanding the present information we have. Without understanding the basis of the earlier experiments, it would be harder to interpret current research.

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

 * The introduction sentence touches on the origins of biochemistry, which effectively sets the stage for the rest of the article which elaborates on how biochemistry has evolved throughout time.
 * The lead briefly describes the content in the article's major sections. While it does not explicitly reference the titles, it references aspects from these sections in a basis manner.
 * The lead includes some information which is not present in the main body of the article, such as the recordings of the term "biochemistry." However, most of the other information about the study of biochemistry is elaborated on in the content section.
 * Parts of the lead seem to be overly detailed, as if they should be moved to another content section of the article. For example, the lead does a good job of setting the stage for what biochemistry is and why it was important to be studied.  However, the paragraph elaborating on the use of the term for biochemistry may be moved to a section in the content which explains the historical usage of the term.  Overall, the content in the introduction is done well, but some of it may need to be moved or altered.

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 of the article is relevant to the topic, and provides a basic introduction to each of the different sections as it moves forward through the history of biochemistry. However, this content can definitely be expanded upon to include more information.

For example, sections such as the one on "Enzymes" are well done and offer a good basis for the study of enzymes. As the section develops, more detail is given about why these molecules were being studied and their role. However, even still, further detail can be given to link together the different experiments and help provide those with less background in the topic with the "Why" each of these experiment is important.

However, other sections like the Instrumental advancements section could use more exploration and development. The article should include and discuss more recent biochemical techniques in a similar manner as it does for PCR. It should explain the general basis behind the technique and some of the applications in the real world.

As such, this article needs some additional content and detail to make it a more comprehensive article on the history of biochemistry. While it is aimed at a general audience, sometimes the omission of detail makes following the article more difficult to follow. As such, the content may need to be edited in a manner which allows the general reader to understand the purpose and significance fo each development.

This article does not directly deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, however, it does seem to omit discoveries by female scientists. While this may be do to similar groups across the world performing the same research and the previous author only electing to focus on a one scientist, the lack of female recognition in science is a widespread issue. As such, if a female scientist was able to publish their works before a male scientist, their work should be acknowledged on this page as well.

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
As this article is more of an evaluation of the history of biochemistry, it is extremely neutral in its tone. Most of the article is composed of statements which help segue between the different experiments and scientists.

While the article does not attempt to influence the reader, it does illustrate the utility of technological advancements such as PCR by highlighting the different uses of PCR to diagnose diseases.

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
All of the facts in the article seem to have a reliable secondary source, and these sources seem comprehensive of the early history of biochemistry. However, most of these sources are old and not current. The newest source appears to have been published in 2003, which explains why the article is lacking more information on current biochemical advancements.

For the articles checked, when linked, they have current functioning sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article seems to be well written, with no standout grammatical or spelling errors. However, the organization can be fixed somewhat. In certain sections, the inclusion of subsections would help better separate some material, especially as the level of detail changes. In other sections, the subsections touch on the same information as the preceding introductory paragraph, and as such, using a special header may be necessary.

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
Some of the images included in the article enhance understanding of the topic, while others seem to contribute little value. For example, the image of the four humors helps explain the Greek idea of "biochemistry". Here, the caption helps illustrate and expand on the topic. On the other hand, the image of Eduard Buchner does not contribute information about the history of biochemistry as well as a different image of his experiment might.

These images appear to adhere to the Wikipedia policy on copyright, and are laid out in a manner which allows reading to easily occur.

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
The talk pack largely touches on these same criticisms. There needs to be more information on different techniques -- both old and new, and the discoveries of these experiments. One person also wanted further evidence on the history of biochemistry rather than a vague connection as the article included. The feedback on this page comes from both a scientific standpoint (expansion on material) and a logical standpoint (justification of claims). Both of these aspects are important in an article which is interpreted by an audience which may not have a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

The article is rated as a level-5 vital article, as start-class, and of mid-high importance. It is an important article, however, it needs more work and elaboration to truly function as a history of biochemistry. However, in terms of Wikipedia's overall grading, this article is of a somewhat lower importance than other articles.

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
The article, as a whole, needs work. While the previous contributors developed a basis on the history of biochemistry, a lot more work needs to be done. For someone with a background in biochemistry, reading the article is easy. However, for the general audience, the article may be hard to follow as it quickly introduces different concepts while not justifying the linkage between the different ideas. For this underdeveloped article to improve, someone should take the time to expand it. They need to add detail on more current technology and techniques, and further organization and elaboration is needed in sections like "Metabolism".

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: