User:Mgironta/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: (link) Oxytocin
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate this article because some of its section seem to be lacking some key information, and others seem to be too long for the based on the subject.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead line does clearly describe the article's topic, it is to the pint and not overly detailed. However, it does not give a description of the major sections of the article. It really only highlights the ways that oxytocin works in females. Even though it does not give us a great view into the rest of the article it does not share information that is not present in the rest of the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall, the content presented in the article is relevant to the topic. It gives a good overview of Oxytocin, its major functions, and a small amount of incite into its biochemistry. from what is presented in the references section most of the information is up to date. However, references 18, 21, 24, and 34 are from the early 1980s and 1970s, these references should be revisited or replaced. some of the content is the article could be improved such as the sections about the functions. In the article each of the physiological functions is given 2 sentences which is not enough to explain the functions. The sections that differentiates the biosynthesis in males and females could be longer. Lastly, the history section at the end is not needed. It does not really go along with the rest of the information that is presented and it is placed awkwardly at the end.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is neutral. When reading this article i did not find any passages that seemed biased or persuasive towards a specific argument. Even though the article is not biased there are some parts that seem to get more attention than others. The biological function of Oxytocin seems to get less attention compared to the psychological functions. The sections about its biological function are much smaller compared to the sections on psychological function.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Based on the sources i have reviewed from the article they are from from reliable secondary sources. From what i could see many of the articles come from a scientific search engine such as NBCI or science direct. However, some parts of the article are linked to other wikipedia pages. These references also do reflect the available literature on the subject. They neatly and concisely collect accurate information that is then displayed in the article. From what i can see the references explain the information thoroughly, and it is easy to understand. Most of the sources are current, except for some of them that were cited from the 1980s and 1970s. Sources such as 18, 21, 24, and 34 should be reviewed to see if the info is accurate, and if it is not they should be replaced. Lastly, the links that i clicked on did work, and they did take me to the correct and accurate information.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is written fairly well, except for the missing information as stated above. The information is clear and easily digestible by the common person on the internet. The article does not have any grammatical errors or spelling errors from what i can see. It is proofread very well, and evidently, not just by one person. Another thing that improves the clarity of the article is the layout of the sections. The sections are organized well, each with their own information that is pertinent to the topic. The organization of the article reflects the major points of the article without restating information.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * Even though the article does not have many images and tables, the ones that it does have do contribute to the understanding of the subject. We can see images on location on the chromosome, transcription, and its general structure. However, one image that is missing is one that shows the method of transportation around the body and the transportation into the cell. Additionally, the images that are presented are captioned well and they each have the appropriate citations. even though the images are helpful they all seemed to be clumped at the top of the page, and then there is one all the way down at the end. This should be changed so that the images are spread throughout the article to contribute to more parts of the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * Based on what is shown in the talk page the conversation that are being had are based on the length of the sections and what they contain. Similarly to what i stated above one of the conversations pertains to the article's in depth focus on the psychological side of Oxytocin. Another conversation highlights the fact that oxytocin is a hormone and should viewed and talked about as one in the article, instead of going into administration procedures. The article is related to Wikiprojects: molecular biology, autism, neuroscience, and women health. It is rated class B for all of the subjects previously stated. Wikipedia talks about this topic in a more relatable and simple way that we talked about it in class. In class we went onto the chemical functions, the structure, the drawbacks, and all of the caveats of the hormone. This article really only goes skin deep so that the normal person can still understand it.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is rated quite highly as a level 4 vital article. Overall, the article is written fairly well and it is well developed in some places, but its real strengths lie within its psychological sections. Like i said previously the article could be improved through the expansion of the biological sections of the article. Once these sections are comparable to the psychological sections then the article would be even stronger.


 * 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?

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: