User:Odowdall/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)ATP synthase

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is a topic I am familiar with, and it is rated a C-Class on the quality scale so I thought I could provide a constructive review. I also wanted to get a sense of how topics that are still active areas of research are represented on Wikipedia. The topic is significant enough in biology that students between high school and college could find useful overviews. Initially I noticed that many of the figures seem dated, not providing updated structures from more contemporary sources, as well as a framing through a more physiological lens rather than a chemical one.

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.)

The leading section has a strong first couple of sentences, with a general description of ATP synthases' function and classification. However the remainder of the section feels disjointed; going into details regarding specific cases rather than an overview of commonalities between all types of ATP synthases. Not all proceeding sections are set up in the leading section such as evolutionary development, but overall the section has good concise descriptions. Just some strange choices of examples. The content of the article is rather good, explaining the different subunits and their function as well as the mechanism that ATP is synthesized by. There are a few inconsistencies in the way the article talks about the c-subunits, saying that it as 6 or 8 seemingly with no mention that it is a species dependent factor. There is even an instance where the article states that E.coli have 8 c-subunits, which is factually incorrect. The article cited for it never mentions the number of c-subunits in E.coli (which is 10) so I am not sure where 8 came from. It also states that there are 6 c-subunits without any reference to what species that is for, or that it is a species-dependent characteristic. I don't think there is much content wise that is missing from this article, it touches on many of the important implications but could use some elaboration. I think the article could benefit from a section regarding the history of the protein's discovery, and how novel techniques have enhanced our understanding of it (the actin filament experiment that showed that it functioned by rotary motion, there is also almost no mention that it is a rotary mechanism).

The article itself is written in a neutral tone, giving a nice broad overview and touching on many of the important points but there is very little chemistry represented, and the article seems to have a more biological emphasis (which is not necessarily bad, just an observation). There can be more said about ATP synthase in different organism, it would be a great section to clarify some of the inconsistencies mentioned above. The references themselves are reputable, mostly from academic journals. The only instance with a questionable citation was the one with E.coli subunits mentioned above.

The article is organized into sensible sections, but there is a certain level of overlap in the sections that just makes the article feel disjointed. Some facts are stated multiple times across the sections which I think gives a feeling of discontinuity when reading the page. While the grammar seems alright, the structural description of the protein is confusing and very inaccessible to those without some sort of background in biochemistry, I think that section could benefit from a better figure. Many of the figures in the article are dated, depicting schematics of the protein rather than contemporary figures (I think this matters less in the sections that aren't devoted to a descriptions of structure).

The talk page suggests that there are others who think the article could benefit from some revisions. The only contemporary figure was recently added by a user who wants to elaborate on the page. Some older comments touch on specifications on classification of different types, ie. A-Type, F-type, V-type, which has been addressed but could be elaborated on, as that part in particular does feel disjointed. The comment remarks that "only F-type ATPases are represented" which is still the case besides some vague remarks in the "In different organisms" section.

The article is C-Class and rated of Mid-Importance and is classified in the WikiProject Physiology. Overall, I think the article can benefit form some minor revisions, mainly elaborating on some sections and clarifying some confusing areas. The article does give a nice overview of information but suffers from some organizational issues. I think this page can be further developed with more contemporary sources providing some newer findings, and emphasizing chemistry and importance in drug-development.

GLH comments
Good - I think you have understood the assignment well. The leading section does get too far into the weeds, I don't think the equation in the lead section is necessary or useful. As we talked about in my office, there is a reliance on primary literature, where I am sure there are secondary sources that can be used for a lot of what is in the page.