User:Mbenja/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: Amyloid beta
 * I chose this article because I have some familiarity with the amyloid beta peptide from a previous course.

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 lead contains an introductory sentence that clearly describes what an amyloid beta peptide is and why it is important. It also gives a description of the article's major sections: it discusses where the peptides come from and some different diseases associated with the peptides. The lead does not contain information that is not present in the article and it has an appropriate amount of detail. It is concise and gives a good overview of the topic.

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
The article contains relevant information about amyloid beta peptides. It describes how they normally function, diseases associated with them, how they form, what their structure is, and different strategies for fighting the diseases. The article is up to date. It contains references to papers that were published as recent as 2018 and the page was last edited on December 30th, 2019. To my knowledge, there does not appear to be any missing content or content that does not belong.

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 and it does not appear to be biased toward a particular position. From what I understand, there has been the most research with amyloid beta peptides and Alzheimer's disease, so it makes sense that this subsection of the Disease section is larger than the other two (cancer and down syndrome). The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor one position over another; the exact role that amyloid beta plays in Alzheimer's disease is not known, but the article presents the different accepted hypotheses.

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 article contains many citations, and it appears that every claim made is backed up by a reliable source of information. There are 91 sources, and glancing them over, they all appear to be from published scientific articles in trusted journals. The sources appear to be up to date and it looks like the article is being updated as more research is published in this field of study. I clicked 3 links in the reference section and they 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
I think this article is very well-written. I think it was concise, yet detailed, and the writing was very clear and easy to read. It was organized well and broken down into relevant sections and subsections. I did not find any spelling or grammatical errors.

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
The article contains an image of the structure of the amyloid beta peptide, as well as an image describing how the peptide is formed. These two images add value to the article. The one that shows how the peptide is formed really helps clarify what is being described in words. The caption on the formation of the Abeta peptide could have a little bit more detail. There is also an image showing the senile plaques in the cerebral cortex that I find useful as well. The images are either in the public domain or had permission granted to be used and therefore do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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
There are conversations of different things to sections to the article. There are also clarification questions asked and answered. Additionally, as new studies come out, people will post them in the Talk section. The article is rated Start Class and Mid importance. It within the scope of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. Wikipedia discusses this topic in a few different ways than we did in class; we mainly were looking at Abeta and Alzheimer's, however this article also presented other diseases that may be linked with these peptides. Additionally, we never really discussed intervention strategies or the genetics of these diseases, but the article does.

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 is still a work in progress and should continue to be updated as more research is done on these peptides. The article lays out the topics discussed in a clear way that makes it easy to follow. I think it might be helpful to include some more images; I am a visual learner, so it helps me to see different process or structures drawn out in cartoon form. I would say that the article is well-developed, but not complete. As I've said multiple times, it needs to be further developed as more scientific articles are published on the topic!

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: