User:Kulkarni2022/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole 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?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * 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?

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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?

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?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * 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?

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?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
Suicide gene

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am interested in suicide gene as it have various applications in treating diseases like cancer and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. This gene can be used to target diseased cells specifically and therefore reduce side effects of any type of treatment.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section does have a concise introductory sentence which clearly describes the article's topic.

Content

The article's content is very much relevant to the topic, however, the content does not seem to be up-to-date as the last reference added to the article was from the year 2014. Moreover, the article has failed to address a few questions like how suicide genes could be used to help neurodegenerative diseases, more information on Virus directed enzyme prodrug therapy to name a few.

Tone and Balance

The article is written from a neutral point of view. It is neither biased to any particular position nor is it trying persuade the reader into any one position.

Sources and References

The sources and references used for this article are from peer-reviewed publications and scholarly books. However, additional citations need to provided to verify few facts presented in the article. Also, latest references should be added.

Organization and writing quality

The article is clear, easy to read and well written. I could not detect any grammatical or spelling errors. Additionally, the article is also well organized.

Images and Media

No images or media are presented in the article. Appropriate images could be added.

Talk page discussion

There have been no discussions on the talk page of this article.

Overall impressions

Overall the status of the article is dormant and the article could be updated with recent findings in the field of molecular biology appropriate to the topic. The article could be improved by providing additional information on topics like GDEPT, CSGT, Regulation of Apoptosis, to name a few. Also, appropriate pictures could be added. The article's strengths include wide coverage of the various applications of suicide genes. Finally, with regard to the overall completeness of the article, I would say that currently, the article is underdeveloped and there is a lot of scope for improvement.