User:Malaliy/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
(Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Aquaporin (Malaliy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * *It has interesting family members where all members transport water yet their functions are little different depending on location. This made me choose this article and evaluate it. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * * This article starts with clearly introducing the Aquaporin, its locations in a cell, and its function. This is followed by a quick summary of the topics which is later described in major sections. For the most part, the introduction is concise, however, there is a part that needs explanation. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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

 * (Malaliy 21:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)) * The content is related to Aquaporin where it is broken down into subsections. The last time this page was updated was 1/14/2020. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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 as it has explained aquaporin of multiple organisms and no biased claimed are noted. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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

 * Yes, there are reliable sources used to back up the information provided. The most recent source in the reference is from 2017. Additionally, after navigating through the 52 sources cited, all the reference works and they reflected the available literature. However, there is room for improvement such as providing further explanation of some concepts as it was last reviewed on march 2017. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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

 * Yes the article is clear, easy to read, and divided to clear subunits. There is room for fixing the grammatical errors. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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

 * Yes there are images. They are well captioned and cited and follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are not blurred and they are well placed. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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 talk section provided ways the article could be improved. Although there is some criticism for not well explained, Wikipedia is for basic knowledge and not a scientific journal. Overall the article is well rated.  (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

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

 * The article could be improved as it was last revised on March 3, 2017. Since then literature had been developed and it could be added. (Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

(Malaliy (22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC))