User:Kmon86/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Biopharmaceutical

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article is of interest to me because I have enjoy topics where chemistry and biology interact and how the understanding of them can lead to the betterment of human health.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

This lead section starts off with a nice introductory sentence and the section as a whole is just concise enough to provide a nice overview to biologics and sets the stage for all of the information to come. There does not seem to be extra information in this section compared to what is addressed in the rest of the article but there is not a formal setup grouping the subtopics that are to be discussed later on.

Content

The overall content at hand appears to all be directly tied back to biologics as well as be rounded out with additional information regarding how they are developed and many nuances about their relevance in society. The sources cited all appear to be largely recent sources and so it is fair to state that the information is up-to-date. The topics that are discussed fully and completely are quite well-written but there are a few subtopics that are lacking in content. These areas include the rest of the examples of biologics after the recombinant DNA produced ones as well as the regulation of them-- particularly in Canada.

Tone and Balance

The content as a whole is well-written and ties back nicely to the topic at hand. There are a few mentioned topics that are left behind a little bit as far as how much explanation has been put into them. However, the topics fully explained provide a nice survey of information for anyone looking to learn more. There doesn't appear to be any obvious attempts at persuasiveness, though there are a few instances where the articles' researchers opinions are matter-of-factly stated and an opposing viewpoint is not simultaneously presented.

Sources and References

The sources listed in this work all appear to be recent and worthwhile to cite in an academic context. There are only two citations that are slightly out-dated one being from the year 2000 and the other 2003 but these are in regard to the regulation of these compounds and not the actual science which is likely to be the more dynamic and fluctuating topic. There are a few references that do not lead to anywhere however which can be concerning considering there could be people pursuing research in this area. After checking the authors, the group appears to be a relatively diverse group of individuals and don't seem to have been selected based upon any discriminative action. The bibliography is quite thorough and supplies a potential researcher with a great deal of potential avenues to go down when conducting their own research but there certainly are other review articles about each of the subtopics that could be utilized to expound further and match the well-written section on recombinant DNA derived biologics.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing flows quite well from topic to topic and is informative. It could however stand to benefit from further explanation of the scientific processes that develop these examples of biologics. The writing is free of grammar errors and is laid out well because it makes the most sense to have what they are first, followed by regulations surrounding their existence in society.

Images and Media

The article could really stand to benefit from more images to support what is being talked about. The only image featured on the page is a picture of plasma without much context unless you read the information in the paragraph next to it. Really interesting pictures that are formatted larger and have detailed captions could really elevate the educational possibilities of this piece. The picture does however, meet Wikipedia's regulations regarding plagiarism.

Talk-page Discussion

In this section, there is a lot of talk of merging this article with an article about biologic medical products. Some people have been saying that the information would be more digestible and add to the other article given its short length. Within the WikiProject of Medicine it is rated B-class and within the WikiProject of Pharmacology it is rated as C-class.

Overall Impressions

This article offers great information about this topic and is very interesting. It seems complete with the understanding that there are certainly details that could be added. It is well-developed with its content but it lacks balance in the amount of content that is presented. The layout and organization of the content makes a lot of sense but the latter end of it seems to be neglected a bit in relation to how much energy was put into the beginning of it.