User:Mmmlg19/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Article 1 (under Group II Small Biological Systems)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Notch Signaling Pathway: (Notch signaling pathway)
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate since I do research related to the Notch Signaling Pathway.

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 does summarize the topic. It provides more descriptions about the mechanism/function than is probably necessary in the Lead as anyone interested would go to that section. The information in the Lead is present in the article but is overly detailed in some aspects while missing information about ligand interactions.

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 content is relevant as anyone interested in the Notch Signaling pathway would want to know its mechanism, function, pathway, interactions, and where it is involved biologically. While it does mention in specific examples that the Notch pathway is part of a larger network, the article does not clearly explain that the Notch pathway is generally regulated by other factors. Someone reading the article would most likely not understand this unless they were already familiar with the system.

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 very balance with the most recent advances having only a small section and the well understood parts being heavily explained. The articles does not contain much, if any, bias and simply explains the pathway.

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 facts are adequately back up by reliable sources, with most sources being scientific studies. Other sources include a scientific consensus on the subject and are part of a larger review article. The sources are current and represent the facts well. At least one hyperlink is no longer functioning and there is not enough cited information to find the source. Most sources are hyperlinked with enough info to find the source should the hyperlink break.

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
The article is well written and most of the language is clear and easy to read. Some of the difficult topics are linked to other wiki pages that can provide further insight. The sections provide a good breakdown of the article.

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 location of the images make sense and can help to understand the topic. The figures are what would be seen in a scientific journal and the captions are very simple. The figures could be more clear but are adequate. They adhere to 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
The conversations are mainly about the figures, info boxes, and merging other topics into this page. They are mainly focused on improving readability and being more concise. The article is rated B and is part of the High-importance MCB articles. Users are not necessarily addressing those who have modified their content.

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 strongest in it's broad scope and being able to concisely explain a pathway where many years of research have been completed. I think the article could be improved by summarizing the information a little better and being more clear about how the Notch signaling Pathway fits into other research topics. Overall it's fairly well developed but some of the sources and figures could be improved.

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:

Evaluate an article - Article 2 (under Group 1 Biomolecules)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Gene Expression: (Gene expression)
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate since Gene expression is important in many biophysics research topics.

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
A few of the sentences are highly technical and a rewording would be beneficial to those trying to understand the most basic level of gene expression, but they do have a notice to go to a different page for a nontechnical intro so that might be good enough. The Lead gives a brief overview of all topics in the article and is somewhat concise.

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 content seems to be mainly up to date and is relevant to the topic. There are a few parts where newer techniques and information could be used to update the content.

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
Overall the article is well balanced and there isn't an over-representation of viewpoints.

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 articles needs more citations and these are even marked in some instances. The sources are fairly current but there is room to improve this.

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
The article is mostly concise since the subcategories are a summary of the main articles. For example "Folding" does a good job at summarizing "protein folding" and giving examples of why scientists are interested. The article is well organized from a biology point of view and would help a novice understand the material.

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 images are useful with some of them, such as the cat explaining gene expression, being more useful than others. A few are highly technical and better captions could be provided. Overall they seem to follow the copyright rules and are in the appropriate locations in the article.

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
This is rated B and is part of the WikiProjects for "Genetics" and "Molecular and Cell Biology." The talk page is organized based on the structure of the article and is highly collaborative. The discussions are similar to how we've talked about in class and the article is improving due to them.

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 well-developed and is currently undergoing revisions to improve its depiction of gene expression. It's strengths include highlighting the most important aspects of gene expression. It can be improved by introducing/improving the citations and including newer information (specifically in the techniques portion).

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: