User:Km86867/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.


 * Name of article: History of genetics
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it pertains to my course topic.

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 not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead lacks a brief description of the major section, pre-mendelian ideas on heredity. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is fairly concise, but would be improved if a sentence was added summarizing the main topic of the article. Doing this would aid the reader in understanding the brief descriptions of the sections.

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 is relevant to the topic, but is lacking more information regarding modern advancements in genetics. The content does not discuss in detail further advancements in genetics after 1986. The timeline of the history of genetics includes noteworthy dates up until 2016, but does not contain any from then to now.

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 neutral and does not seem to lean towards one position or another, and did not try to persuade the reader in any way. All of the viewpoints presented seemed to be presented equally.

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
Not all of the facts presented in the article were from reliable secondary sources. There were sources from magazines, books published and sold from one individual, and news entities. The sources did seem to cover the available literature on the topic, except for the more modern information regarding advancements in genetics, which was omitted entirely. The sources are current. 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 was well-organized, but could be adjusted to be more concise, clear, and easy to read. No grammatical or spelling errors were observed.

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 present enhanced the understanding of the topic, but some were confusing and did not aid in comprehension. All of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The Hershey-Chase experiment image needs to have the relicensing status reviewed by an experienced user. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way. The images are well-captioned.

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 were no conversations found on the talk page. The article rating and involvement in any WikiProjects could not be found. The Wikipedia article discusses the history of genetics in more depth than it has been talked about in class. Our class has discussed more modern genetic advancements that were not discussed in this article.

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
Although the article has some meaningful content, it is lacking a large amount of information. Some of the sources that were used are unreliable. The quality of the writing could be improved to aid in reader comprehension. I believe this article is under-developed and should be improved. The article did have well structured topics and presented each topic equally.

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: