User:Neeko Sneako2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Protein targeting - Wikipedia)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article after scanning other articles listed in the Cell and Molecular Biology Project listings. I decided to avoid any article with a C rating or higher and opted for this one listed as a stub article with a completeness score of 59. It is my belief that additional information can be added, and the presentation/organizing of some sections modified. There are sections that portray good information with the lack of added references. Even if those references are provided at the end, it is not immediately clear in the paragraphs provided where the information came from. One section is listed as too technical with the opportunity of providing a better explanation without removal of the technical details. It has not escaped my notice that protein targeting to the nucleus has only briefly been mentioned, however a prior debate in 2006 found in the talk page of this article discusses why this is the case. I am not entirely convinced this was the right move and seek to look more closely at this during my evaluation. Given this topic is of significance to those learning about Cell and Molecular Biology and how products of translation are organized to their proper environments in a busy cell, I believe this article was a good choice. Page view statistics approximate 50-60 page views per day.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section.

This section is indeed brief and concise providing a good explanation as to the intentions of the article. However, the lead section does not include a decent brief review of the sections that follow in the rest of the article. While the lead section mentions implications in disease, the later section contains a very short list that could be expanded with the addition of their corresponding links to those pages. The lead section also includes many hyperlinks to words or phrases that correspond to other Wikipedia pages that assist in a firs-time readers understanding to what is being presented. The quality of these hyperlinked pages has not been evaluated at this time.

Content.

The current content is certainly relevant and appears at first glance to be up to date. The latest reference appearing to be 2020 which could suggest some gaps yet to be illustrated. Further analysis of literature review articles may provide further insight. None of the detailed section appear to be inappropriate for this article listing but there is some debate about including some aspects to protein targeting to the nucleus. As two editing authors have pointed out that there are pages dedicated to nuclear localization already and that the depth of its discussion might limit its inclusion to this particular page. The argument is based on the reversibility of nuclear protein targeting but fail to address that some proteins localized there do not exit the nucleus due to nuclear retention signals imbedded on those proteins. It was mentioned in the talk page that protein targeting should be considered from an irreversible perspective. It is uncertain from my point of view if this information should at least be provided in brief.

Tone and Balance.

After thorough reading the article appears to contain no bias or opinions that would deter readers from the facts presented from reliable sources. It is not certain if other viewpoints are not represented in this article, but further inspection of additional sources will determine if this is to be added. It might be possible that some generalization made from the use of secondary sources such as the use of the word "many" do not reflect the known statistics of the information presented.

Sources.

The first half of the article does include in text citations that provide reference for the presented information. However, only one source was used for any of the information provided. The citations appear to be from reliable secondary sources. The second half of the article provides a decent amount of information without any in text citations. While the sources that have provided this information may be present at the end of the article in the reference section, this is not inherently obvious. There is certainly an extended list of additional references that could be added to those already present and to those that have not been cited at all. It appears that the links given do work and are of good quality for presentation on Wikipedia. None of the sources used are from random web sites or news coverage.

Organization & Writing Quality.

As with the use of citations, the first half of the article seems well constructed with little need for revising. However, the second half with no citations appears to be less organized and more technical in detail. It does appear possible to break some sections into subsections to present a more pleasing layout for the information presented. There does not appear to be any grammatical, or sentence structure errors but this will be assed in greater detail.

Images.

There is only one image used for this article and it is present in the history section in which a leading scientist (Gunter Blobel) for protein targeting is presented with the appropriate caption. The image adheres to policies and is listed as a picture taken by the original editing author of this article while at a symposium. Additional images could definitely enhance the information presented. Suggested images would contain protein targeting pathways and mechanisms such as those in the secretory pathway. As well as consensus sequences for proteins and their final destinations. Debatably, nuclear targeting could be included but might overlap with a current article in which discusses this in more detail. Images would certainly help illustrate the technical heavy concepts provided in the mitochondrial protein targeting section.

Talk Page Discussion.

As mentioned before there is some debate about article content within the talk page for this article. This was last discussed in 2006. There were also some discrepancies in protein targeting within prokaryotic organisms that could be improved upon. It appears a call for a list in disease involvement was addressed but not in its entirety and an additional update could illuminate the implications of defective protein targeting in disease. The last comment was made in the year 2008 signifying that further collaboration is necessary. The article is still rated as a stub article with a completion rating of 59 and is currently a subject for the Cell and Molecular Biology Project on Wikipedia.

Overall Impressions.

The overall article is a good starting point for protein targeting but does not address in detail its properties and is not at all visually pleasing to those that may be reading about the subject for the first time. Especially for those in introductory courses. While it may not appear to be a stub article, it may be listed as such given its incomplete nature for a more decent rating. The articles strengths are in its brevity and inclusion of historical significance. It not only lists the diseases that arise through defectiveness of protein targeting but also includes links to pages overviewing the methods to determine these sequences and for related searches in those sequences. I would say the article has a great starting point but is under-developed in its presentation of the material. Defining protein targeting isn't enough to conclude its significance or involvement but further illustration could highlight these weaker areas presented in this article.