User:Noelmanring/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.


 * Epistasis: Epistasis
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I found the topic of epistasis interesting in lecture. This article at first glance appears to be detailed with several sources, so I am hoping that it will be a good example of a well written and researched article.

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 introductory sentence "phenomenon in genetics in which the effect of a gene mutation is dependent on the presence or absence of mutations in one or more other genes" provides a concise definition of what epistasis is. That being said, I believe the definition could be simplified in order to make it easier for people who are learning about genetics for the first time to understand. Epistasis can be defined by as the interactions between two or more genes, and I believe the lead tries to explain that in a more sophisticated way, that could be lost in translation for people with no prior education on genetics. The lead is not overly detailed and is very to the point. The first paragraph attempts to explain the concept and the second paragraph explains how epistasis is used in more than just genetics. The lead included two diagrams providing examples of epistasis in genetics that offered more clarity on how epistasis works.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Overall the content in this article is relevant to the topic of epistasis. It has been edited and revised hundreds of times since the articles first entry and has revisions as recent as June 2020. These revisions show how the topic of epistasis is constantly progressing and the up to date content reflects those advancements. There is a section on fitness landscapes and evolvability, that I do find as relevant as the rest. I think it is important to write about since it has to do with epistasis in general, but I think it would be better off as a separate article since it does not write belong with the rest of 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
The article has a neutral tone. It does not appear to be biased towards epistasis being inherently beneficial or not. The article explains sign epistasis, which explains how the causes of it can be good or bad, depending on the genes linked. Instead the article aims to explain the relevancy and presence of epistasis and how it can happen in all organisms ( haploids and diploids). The article even included arguments and theories on how epistasis should be considered good to bad, but then explains that the evidence for either argument is not straight and cannot be interpreted as such.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are 59 sources included for this article, which is quite a few considering the article is not incredibly lengthy. The sources include research done on epistasis, what epistasis is and how it works, epistasis in different organisms, and the role of epistasis in genetics. This is an overall good assortment of sources because it provides a diverse spectrum of authors and topics having to do with epistasis. Some of the sources are older, but there also ones that are more current and the links do work.

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 epistasis is concise and is overall easy to read and understand. Even though the lead did offer some harder to understand language and definitions, the content provided throughout the rest of the article made the concept of epistasis easy to comprehend. The article does not contain any major grammar or spelling errors that I noticed. That being said, I do believe the organization of the article is questionable. There are two sections on "additivity" which is redundant. The concept of how epistasis can be additive only needs to be explained once and only in the sign epistasis section. The section on fitness and landscapes and evolvability is out of context and in an awkward spot in the article. I understand that section was trying to discuss the evolution of epistasis, but that part did not belong with the rest of it and should be in a separate article as previously stated.

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 article has a few diagrams and visual aids, but I think more would be beneficial. Epistasis can be a bit difficult to visualize for people learning it for the first time, so I think more detailed images would be a good addition. That being said, the images that were provided did adhere to the copyright regulations and were well captioned. The images in the lead were a bit small and awkwardly placed and could have been made bigger to make them easier to read. The images in the remaining parts of the article were displayed in an appealing way.

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 talk page for the epistasis article contained a lot of controversy. Many people did not agree with the overall definition of epistasis given, which I stated in my evaluation as well. There was also a lot of discussion on the overall clarity of the article, especially with the concept of sign epistasis. It seemed a lot of people had complaints on how things in the article were worded, but did not really offer any insight on how to fix or change it. I think the lack of clarity and the strife in the talk page shows how it can be difficult to explain a more complex idea like epistasis, in a way that is easily comprehended.

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
Overall I thought the article was incomplete. There was a lack of clarity throughout the entire thing, but I do not necessarily blame the authors for it. Epistasis can be hard to explain, especially in terms that easy to understand. I think this article provides a good source in learning about what epistasis is, but I do not think it is complete enough for someone to be able to learn everything they need to know. From this article people would have to continue doing their own research on epistasis, so I definitely would not say this is an "encyclopedia article" for what epistasis is. I think a lot of improvements can be made from this article, once enough people can come to a conclusive idea and definition of what epistasis is. The article did have a lot of sources, but it seemed as if those sources were simply listed and not really read through to help better this article.

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: