User:Kemorri/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1
Lead section
 * Article title:Lewy Body
 * Article Evaluation


 * 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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? This article has a strong lead in. The introductory sentence is concise and clear, letting the reader know what the article is about (lewy bodies) and answers the primary question readers are probably coming to this page for- what is a lewy body? I think the lead in could be improved by re-organizing the information and adding some information to better represent/mention the major points of this article. It doesn't include any unnecessary, extra information.

Content


 * 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? The content included is relevant to the topic and up-to-sate. I think additional information on research surrounding lewy bodies could be added. I also think this article could be improved upon by adding some illustrations or diagrams to supplement what is being talk about. The topic doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article is written from a neutral point of view. There are no biased claims. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented. There are no clear minority viewpoints mentioned.

Sources and References


 * 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? This article is backed by secondary sources and a few primary sources. The quantity and quality of the sources used reflect a lot of the available literature / main points about lewy bodies. The sources are current. The sources are written by a diverse array of authors.

Organization and writing quality


 * 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? The article is well written and has very few grammatical errors. The writing is concise and presented in a logical order. A lot of the wording used is complex and would hard to understand if you don't have some sort of science background.

Images and Media


 * 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?The image included is extremely helpful, as it gives the reader a visual as to what a lewy body is. All microscope slides included have a detailed description of what they depict and are visually appealing. They adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion


 * 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? It seems that new aspects of this topic are still being discovered. There is not much on the talk page, though the comments that are there seem to address a few minor additions users though would benefit this article as well as changing wording used. This is an S rated article.

Overall impressions


 * 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? The article is an S rated article. It provides a good overview of lewy bodies that is backed by strong sources.
 * Sources:https://www.nature.com/articles/42166

Option 2

 * Article title:Maria Grazia Spillantini
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead section
 * 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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? This article has a strong lead in section. It is short, but provides an overview of who Maria Grazia Spillantini is and her major contributions. Could be improved by making sure it addresses all of the main points of the article. There is no information present here that is not included in the article.
 * Content
 * 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? The article's content is relevant to the topic. There is very little information provided and much that could be added upon in regards to Spillantini's studies. It address topics related to historically underrepresented populations- a woman in the field of science
 * Tone and Balance
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The information included is addressed in a neutral tone. This article lacks bias and persuasive language.
 * Sources and References
 * 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Sources are current, but there are a lot of primary sources referenced. They also are not representative of all available literature on the topic. More specifically, the research Spillantini does could be expanded upon. There are other secondary and tertiary sources available to supplement this article. The links provided work.
 * Organization and writing quality
 * 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? The article is written well. The wording is easy to comprehend and concise. There are no major grammatical errors and the sections make sense. In this case, Spillantini's research and career are extremely interconnected, so it makes sense to have a combined section for these two topics.
 * Images and Media
 * 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? There are no images included. The article could be improved by adding a picture of Spillantini and images to supplement explanations of her studies.
 * Talk page discussion
 * 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? There is no discussion on the talk page. It is an S rated article.
 * Overall impressions
 * 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? The article is an S rated article. This article is S rated. The information included in this article gives a good overview as to who Spillantini is, but lacks many major highlights of her research and career. This article lacks information. This article could be greatly improved by adding information about the studies Spillantini has performed and additional contributions she has made in the field of science.
 * 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? The article is an S rated article. This article is S rated. The information included in this article gives a good overview as to who Spillantini is, but lacks many major highlights of her research and career. This article lacks information. This article could be greatly improved by adding information about the studies Spillantini has performed and additional contributions she has made in the field of science.


 * Sources:https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/cambridge-researchers-taking-action-against-dementia-get-50k-boost/ :https://www.drugtargetreview.com/news/44392/molecule-which-targets-parkinsons-protein-identified/ :https://amblondra.esteri.it/en/news/dall_ambasciata/2019/03/prof-ssa-maria-grazia-spillantini-2/ :https://www-neurosciences.medschl.cam.ac.uk/blog/honour-awarded-to-professor-maria-grazia-spillantini/ :https://research.com/u/maria-grazia-spillantini :https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news/research-round-3rs-innovations-alzheimers-disease :https://acmedsci.ac.uk/fellows/fellows-directory/ordinary-fellows/fellow/Professor-Maria-Grazia-Spillantini-0008852 :https://www.thelancet.com/laneur/about :https://www.thelancet.com/laneur/editorial-advisory-board

Option 3

 * Article title:Nieng Yan
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead section
 * 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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead section includes a concise and clear opening, giving an overview as to who Nieng Yan is. The lead doesn't include information not present in the article. However, it also doesn't hit all the main points discussed in the article. It could be improved by adding Yan's major contributions to the field of science.
 * Content
 * 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? The article's content is relevant to the topic and the content is up-to-date. I cannot tell is there is content missing or if the "missing" content is just not available online. It address topics related to historically underrepresented populations- women in science.
 * Tone and Balance
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? This article is written from a neutral viewpoint and doesn't seem to be biased. There aren't viewpoints that are that are over or underrepresented. There is no persuasion used in this article either.
 * Sources and References
 * 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? This article is backed by a wide variety of reliable sources. They are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. They are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. This article could be improved by adding additional information about Yan's studies. However, after looking into possible sources to add, I am not sure there is enough resources available to add to this topic.
 * Organization and writing quality
 * 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? The information provided is organized in a logical order and easy to follow. It is clear and concise with few grammatical errors.
 * Images and Media
 * 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? There are no images included. This article could be improved by adding an image of Yan.
 * Talk page discussion
 * 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? There is little conversation on the talk page.
 * Overall impressions
 * 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? The article is an S rated article. This article is organized very well and the information that is included is clear and concise. This article could be improved by adding more detailed information on Yan's studies.

Difficult finding sources on this biologist, especially sources that aren't primary sources. May be smart to expand on article with topic that is more notable and has more resources to add.
 * Sources