User:Kimberlikoo/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article: Article 1
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Nanoparticle Drug Delivery
 * The article is relevant to the article I will be writing and is in topic category 3.

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 lead includes an introductory sentence that serves as a good overview of nanoparticle drug delivery. The rest of the paragraph acts as more of a background for the topic. It is too detailed and includes unnecessary information that is repeated in later sections anyway. The lead can be thinned out to create a more organized introduction to the major points that will be discussed in the rest of the article. The lead does mention the main sections that come later, but it is not in a clearly stated way.

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?

Content evaluation
The content seems to be good and up to date, though it may be a bit lacking in some areas. Information on nanoparticle-albumin technology and metal nanoparticles can be added and elaborated on. The section on dendrimers may be separated from the polymeric nanoparticles section, too. A section on cancer treatment using nanoparticle drug delivery should also be added, since it's a relevant subject for this topic.

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
The article is informative and neutral. It doesn't lean heavily toward any position or perspective on the topic. There aren't really any arguments that are made in the article.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are many reliable secondary sources of information, but there is also a lot of information backed up by primary sources (research articles that are not reviews). The sources are thorough though they are mostly from the early 2000s. More current sources may be found the back up the article. the links that are present do work.

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 is fairly well-written although it is very dense in information. Some information is also repeated so that can be cut down on. There are no obvious grammar/spelling errors.
 * The sections of the article are good, but can be divided up more to create smaller blocks of texts. For example, the topic of dendrimers is lumped into the polymeric nanoparticles section, but that can be separated out to make its own section.

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

 * There are no images present. Images may be a helpful addition for the article.

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
There are no conversations yet. The article is rated as start-class because it's still a very premature article. It is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry and was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation.

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 seems fairly well-written, but missing some information that is relevant to the subject written about. The organization can also be redone to create a more cohesive article. The information is densely packed together so it may also be rewritten to be more accessible to the public.

Evaluate an Article: Article 2
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Viral Vector
 * This topic is interesting and relevant to the current gene therapies involved in treatment of various disease. This is in topic category 2.

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 lead does include an introductory sentence that briefly describes the article's topic. It only mentions content from one major section in article: Applications. It does not briefly describe the types of viral vectors used or the limitations/challenges in application. It does not include information not present in the article but it is concise.

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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant and relatively up-to-date, although the references show that many of the sources are from the early 2000s. There does not seem to be any content missing or any content that does not belong.

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
The article is informative and neutral without being biased toward any particular position or perspective.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are many sources, but the article itself does not include many specific citations for a lot of the information stated. The sources are fairly current and relatively thorough, although more sources can and should be added. The links work.

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 is well written and pretty easy to read with no clear grammatical errors. The article has a good organization of main sections and subheadings.

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
There is one image present with a concise and informative caption. It's in a good position and does help with understanding of the topic. More images may be added to enhance the article.

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
There is a short conversation about including a map of commercially available vectors, although it doesn't seem to have been achieved. The article is rated as B-class. It is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics.

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 is well written and informative. The lead can include a better overview of more sections mentioned in the article and more sources could be added to support the information presented. Overall, though, there are no major issues.