User:NeuroFall2021/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
nicotinic acetylcholine receptor

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
''I have previously studied alpha5 and alpha7 nAChRs at two different positions which made me inclined to learn more. My first impression was this is a comprehensive wikipedia page solely based on its length. However, once I started reading each section, I realized that the article is poorly developed and needs work.''

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?
 * Yes, the first sentence states that nAChRs are receptors that bind to acetylcholine.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * 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?
 * The lead is concise, however it does not allude to the subsections in the article.

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
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Only a small handful of sources were published in the last 5 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The subsection "Effects" seems lacking. This section contains a few sentences that describes the binding of nicotine (nAChR agonist) and several different effects. The writing is vague and not specific to nAChRs. This could be clearer and written in a more impactful way.
 * 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 from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I know of
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a lot of information about the structure of the receptor and less about the different densities/importance in various brain areas. And there are no sections about the clinical importance of nAChRs.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * I do not think so
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not think so

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?
 * No, the entire "effects" subsection is not cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are many sources, but very few published in the last 5 years.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are many sources, but very few published in the last 5 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are many different authors represented, authors with Japanese, Chinese and Spanish last names.
 * 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.)
 * It looks like all of the sources are peer-reviewed articles
 * 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?
 * No, the page lacks a good flow, and some of the paragraphs/ideas do not read well.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The subsections are organized well, however the paragraphs within each subsection lack organization.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, however I would like to see a graphic showing nAChRs as ionotropic receptors.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images could have more comprehensive captions.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The 3D structure did not have a citation. Not sure if it's a public image.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The 3D structure was too small.

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?
 * The most recent talk page subsection was in Nov. 2011. In Feb. 2010, someone expressed their frustration by stating "the framework of this article is a disaster..." then goes point by point indicating what they disagree with.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as "start-class" of "mid-importance". And it is part of the Molecular and Cell Biology project
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have our cholinergic lecture next, so I will find out soon.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is outdated and needs to be overhauled; it lacks cohesive structure in individual paragraphs other than the first one.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article contains relatively lengthly subsections of information from a variety of sources (though outdated).
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could be improved by editing the sentence structures in each subsection along with citing recent literature reviews.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that this is poorly developed containing a lot of disjointed information. It would be a large project to take on. The only section that appeared complete was the "subunits" subheading.

Evaluate the article
The nicotinic acetylchoilne receptor (nAChR) page appears comprehensive at first glance, however, once each paragraph is dissected, the lack of cohesiveness and relevance is quite evident. One good example is the "effects" subsection. The title of the subsection itself is vague. Is the article referring to the effects of a synthesized agonist or antagonist binding to the receptor? Or the effects of endogenous acetylcholine binding? It is unclear. This subsection also lacks a citation, and should be removed completely. The article also lacks pictures or diagrams as a visual aids to the long text. I would like to see a diagram with both nAChRs and mAChRs highlighting the ionotropic properties of the nAChR. As a person who is interested in the translational or clinical relevance of science, I would have liked to see a section on the medical applications of both natural and synthesized molecules that bind to nAChRs. Also, as a person interested in systems neuroscience, I would have liked to see a section breaking down individual parts of the brain with different densities of each of subunit group of nAChRs and how they may relate to behavior.

However, the article appears to present a neutral tone and point of view with a long list of sources from a variety of different labs. Unfortunately, the page lacks papers published within the last 5 years and could be updated. The most recent talk page subsection was in Nov. 2011. In Feb. 2010, someone expressed their frustration by stating "the framework of this article is a disaster..." then goes point by point indicating what they disagree with. I empathize with this person's concern as the article needs a lot of work, and very few people have the time to overhaul this entire page. For a page of mid-importance, I would have expected more; although wikipedia did flag it as a "start-class".