User:Kp0615/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article (Feedback)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Recombinant DNA
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.  From Biochemistry 1 lecture DNA cloning was always a topic of interest for me and I wanted to further enhance my knowledge regarding this particular topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A bit overly detailed in the introduction.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints are represented in a fair matter.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No viewpoints is shown in the article as its neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most sources or nearly  all were easily verified.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are accurate and they reflect the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Most sources are recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes article is presented in a clear manner ..
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None I have noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization can be slightly improved in leading introductory paragraphs . Titles and subtitles can also be better named such as Creation, Uses , Further readings , Expression.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes but one particular image of gene cloning has too much captions within the picture . A simpler image may want to be used.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? All images were appealing besides the gene cloning image shown with the steps . That image had way to many captioning and a lot of information was shown in a small image.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? N/A
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? N/A
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia discusses this topic in terms of uses for this topic . In medicine, in research and in biotechnology are some of the few applications of recombinant DNA.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Good
 * What are the article's strengths? This article is written from a neutral perspective . All information was properly cited from various of reliable sources and links can easily be confirmed.
 * How can the article be improved? Only improvement would be to fix the section titles previously noted . Also to fix introductory paragraphs format.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Article is moderately developed as introduction can be improved along with section titles.

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: