User:Mill2488/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)

Insulin-like growth factor 1


 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article to evaluate because insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) is related to my interest in growth hormone, the IGF-1/GH axis, and the relationship between growth hormone and the microbiome. In order to research further into these topics, it will be helpful for me to be knowledgeable about insulin-like growth factor. The article seems to be missing key citations and information that I would find useful when looking up information about the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes it clearly describes what IGF-1 is, but it could be worded a little better.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead provides a brief description of some of the major sections, but is missing a description of most of the article's major sections.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes, the lead gives some random information on the IGF-1 protein (length and molecular weight) but doesn't have a section that goes further in depth on its size or structure.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It's concise with the little information that it provides. Some things could definitely be condensed, but it's mostly lacking details.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. It contains important information about IGF-1 such as its synthesis and circulation and mechanism of action. To the best of my knowledge on the topic, the basic information seems up-to-date. When looking at the sources, I see 4-5 articles from the last few years, so the page hasn't been completely neglected. Although, I'm sure there's been new research that could be used to make the article much more informative and even more up-to-date. There is a lot of information missing in this article. Many sections are not well detailed and only provide a little background. Many statements are missing medical citations. The history and culture section is empty, and I'm not sure if it is even a necessary section to be included anyway. The article doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is neutral. It doesn't make any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. However, many claims are missing a citation, so it's hard to distinguish if the information is coming from a bias source or not or if it's even true at all. There doesn't seem to be viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented. This article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.


 * 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
 * There are many facts in the article that are not backed up by reliable sources or any sources at all. Some of the sources are reliable and thorough. Some appear to be primary sources rather than secondary sources though. There are a mix of current and older articles. It seems like the older articles used are for basic information that hasn't changed, so that's not a problem. Some of the sources no longer work. When you click on them, they don't lead anywhere. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There's one article that's a New York Times article to provide some cultural information. I don't know if it really belongs in a scientific article such as this one but it does highlight some historically marginalized individuals in a small way.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Some sections of the article are very well written. Other sections could use some rewording to be more easily understood. Overall, the article is clear and easy to read. There are no spelling or large grammatical errors. The article is well-organized in some areas, but some sections could be deleted and new sections could be added.


 * 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
 * The article includes images that are helpful to understanding of the topic. They are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are generally laid out in a visually appealing way, but could be formatted to be even more concise and easy to read. I think the article could be improved by adding even more helpful images.


 * 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
 * There are a lot of conversations going on behind the scenes of this article. There are sections about information that has been removed for being misleading. There's also sections about information that should be added bit needs to be written first. There are also concerns about passages in the article that are bias or untrue according to other sources. Additionally, there are concerns about the missing citations throughout the article. Some users have added ideas for new research on the topic but those posts are from 2011 so much of that info is now outdated. Most of the comments on the talk page are years old. The most recent one is from a year ago and addresses the fact that references to clinical trials mentioned in the article need to be expanded. This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cell Signaling, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we'd discuss it in class because it attempts to simplify the topic for people that may not understand the more technical aspects of molecular biology. In class we go much more in depth with molecular pathways associated with different hormones.


 * 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 as Start-class indicating that is has a meaningful amount of good content, but it's still weak in many areas. It's strengths are a few well-developed sections with reliable sources. This article can be improved by adding the missing sources, reorganizing sections such as the lead, and adding detailed, up-to-date sections on the topic. I think the article is well-developed in some areas but over it's underdeveloped.


 * 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: Talk:Insulin-like growth factor 1