User:Nefimor7/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: Cas9
 * I have chosen this article because immunology is one of the foundations to modern medicine. Therefore, I wanted to focus on a protein that helps with DNA engineering for immunological response.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead in fact has a lot of information that allows it to be well understood by its readers.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Each section of the article is listed appropriately and includes pertinent information about the protein.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the information is present and cited appropriately.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Some sections of the Lead is wordy; however, it is very straightforward for the most part.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. All of the content refers to the CRISPR protein.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. Considering how CRISPR is relatively new, the information is very recent and most articles pertaining to the content is already cited.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the information is there.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not necessarily.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Possibly the section labeled CRISPR processing could have more information on the methods used.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. The article is clear on multiple ideas and positions.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all the information is backed by several studies.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they are all thorough and come from reliable sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are recent (within the decade).
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is a little bit difficult to read, especially if one has limited knowledge in CRISPR technology. However, the article is well written, and the areas that are more familiar do show that it is a great representation of information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No apparent grammatical were noted.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, it includes images of the biochemical structures of the protein.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Each image has enough information to understand the concept conveyed.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * They say that there are too many duplicates in information on the CRISPR link.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated low to mid importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * More in depth and a lot of information.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Very good, with a few minor changes needed.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article was informative and gave enough background information to understand the implications of the cas9 protein.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The only improvement that I can think of is changing the wording on some of the more extensive sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems complete and well-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: