User:Laurenbaylor/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: Neurotransmission
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I think the topic is really interesting, but because it is only a C-class article, there is probably room for improvement.

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 introductory sentence explains in simple terms the process of neurotransmission, and links to the Wikipedia pages of technical terms so readers can easily look those up as well. The rest of the lead gives some general information about neurotransmission, and the rest of the article goes into more detail. Some information in the lead seems overly detailed, and it may have been better to keep the lead shorter and include the detailed information in the appropriate sections of the article. The lead provides the background information necessary to understand the basics of neurotransmission, so for any reader looking to just get a general overview of the topic, reading just the lead would be sufficient.

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
All content is relevant and appropriate for the article. However, all of the major sections are relatively short, and a couple of them are only a few sentences. The lead is longer than any of the main sections, so it may have been appropriate to pull some details from the lead into the content section. Additionally, more sources could be found to add more information to the content section, as it is very brief.

There are several opportunities in the article to link to other Wikipedia pages. For example, the "General Description" section references G protein coupled receptors and Ionotropic receptors (aka ligand-gated ion channels). Wikipedia pages exist for both types of receptors and would provide excellent additional information for readers, and should probably be linked in the article.

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 overall appears neutral and unbiased. There are no biased claims or attempts at persuasion. All statements in the article appear to be cited and backed by valid sources.

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
The sources all appear to be from scientific reviews and journals, so are likely reliable. The sources are relatively current, with dates ranging from 2000-2018 and one source from 1984. I checked a few links which all worked.

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 to-the-point and is relatively easy to read. There are some technical terms that may be confusing to readers without a scientific background, and these could use a simple definition and/or a link to a Wikipedia page to help users understand. Overall, the article does a good job explaining the concepts simply so anyone could understand them.

I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. The major sections do a good job separating all of the major points in the article.

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 only one image included in the article. It is very helpful to understand the basic process of transmission. It has a detailed caption and links back to the image's Wikicommons page. The image is free to use with the link back to the license, so it is used appropriately.

More images, if available, could be helpful throughout the article to help readers understand the more complex topics in the main content section.

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
The conversations are primarily ideas on how to expand the page. As I also noted, the content section could use expansion in pretty much all aspects. Users mainly discussed ideas on what could be added to the article, or explained any additions they had already added.

The article is part of 3 WikiProjects: Molecular and Cell Biology, rated Start-class; Neuroscience, rated C-class; and Biology, rated C-class.

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
Overall, the article has helpful information, but is underdeveloped. The article does a good job breaking down concepts into simple, easy-to-understand explanations, but could add more definitions/links to technical terms. The lead section is very robust, but the content section is lacking in all the sections. I think it includes sections that are important and relevant to the topic, and if those were expanded then the article would be much stronger.