User:Mroghair/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The trp operon.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I'm very familiar with the trp operon and feel like it's a difficult topic for many students to grasp in microbiology/genetics courses. Having a strong wikipedia page on the topic could help future students understand the concept better. It is also listed as a C-class article. I feel that I have the knowledge to rephrase and improve this article.

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?
 * The lead is not concise. Instead of introducing the trp operon simply, it defines what an operon is
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, but it is not easy to follow
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed. It jumps into details before it needs to. Some details should be moved to other sections

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. It's a bit lengthy in some sections and short in others, but everything is on-topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Mostly, there aren't any glaring gaps I can see
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content appears to be missing
 * 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?
 * There are topics that are overrepresented (attenuation) and underrepresented (repression)
 * 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?
 * N/A

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?
 * There are centainly newer sources available that could be cited.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most recent source is from 2008, so they are not very current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No - over half the sources come from one group, Lee and Yanofsky, who discovered the operon. It's not necessary to cite every single paper the pair published on Wikipedia.
 * 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.)
 * The article references a few print books, which isn't useful for people on the internet who don't want to buy a book to find out more information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

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?
 * This article is not well written. There are many choppy sentences that make it difficult to follow what the author is discussing
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The grammar is poor and the sentence structures are often incomplete or run-on sentences. Spelling seems to be okay.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sections are pretty good - repression and attenuation are the two main parts of the operon's function. They are not covered evenly/

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * One of the three images is useful in describing attenuation. The other two aren't particularly useful.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions are okay: sufficient, but not great.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, the page is poorly organized

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?
 * There are a few individuals on the talk page disucssing problems with the article, but many of them have not been fixed
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as C-class on the quailty scale. It is part of the WikiProject Molecular Biology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * They're discussing potential changes and improvements that can be made to the writing of the topic. They mostly agree on the correctness of the information present there.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-class, high-priority for improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It cites primarily literature, the individuals who discovered the trp operon. The facts all seem correct.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Shortening the attenuation section, re-writing the lead, and adding updated sources
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is poorly developed. The sections it contains are good, but certain areas are over/underrepresented. The citations in the attenuation section feel like a student pasted in a paper they wrote on attenuation and copied over all the links from that paper. It's too detailed for wikipedia. Other sections are overall lacking information.