User:MatthewGuareschi/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ligand (biochemistry)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Ligands directly relate to the main article I chose to edit so I am evaluating this article on Ligands.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

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?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? (It shouldn't.)It has a little bit of extra information that isn't necessarily important
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?I would say the lead is slightly over 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?yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?yes, it was edited less than a month ago.
 * 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?no

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?yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no

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?yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?yes
 * Are the sources current?yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?yes
 * 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.)yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?Yes, the links 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?yes
 * 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?yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?yes

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?not many
 * How is the article rated?good Is it a part of any WikiProjects?no
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?Pretty similar, but more detail on wikipedia.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?I believe this is a well written article overall.
 * What are the article's strengths?The article flows well and provides good information on the subject. Information is backed up with reliable sources.
 * How can the article be improved?The article could use more photos for better understanding of some concepts.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?I think the article is relatively complete. It is well developed in terms of sources and length. I do not believe they missed much important information about ligands.