User:Organism1772/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: Drosophila melanogaster
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate? It was part of a training module set up for our course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

"Drosophila melanogaster is a species of fly (the taxonomic order Diptera) in the family Drosophilidae. The species is known generally as the common fruit fly or vinegar fly. Starting with Charles W. Woodworth's proposal of the use of this species as a model organism, D. melanogaster continues to be widely used for biological research in genetics, physiology, microbial pathogenesis, and life history evolution. As of 2017, eight Nobel prizes had been awarded for research using Drosophila."

(Paragraph pasted here directly from the original article)


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and clear. Sentences do not run long and neither are they overly saturated with information.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Contents

 * 1Physical appearance
 * 2Lifecycle and reproduction
 * 2.1Females
 * 2.2Males
 * 2.3Polygamy
 * 3Model organism in genetics
 * 3.1History of use in genetic analysis
 * 3.2Reasons for use in laboratories
 * 3.3Genetic markers
 * 3.4Classic genetic mutations
 * 4Genome
 * 4.1Similarity to humans
 * 5Development
 * 6Sex determination
 * 7Immunity
 * 8Behavioral genetics and neuroscience
 * 9Aggression
 * 9.1Acoustic communication
 * 9.2Pheromone signaling
 * 9.3Competition for food
 * 9.4Effect of sleep deprivation
 * 10Transgenesis
 * 11Vision
 * 12Grooming
 * 13Walking
 * 14Flight
 * 15Misconceptions
 * 16See also
 * 17References
 * 18Further reading
 * 19External links


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes (See contents pasted above)
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
Tone and Balance


 * Guiding questions

"Misconceptions

Drosophila is sometimes referred to as a pest due to its tendency to live in human settlements, where fermenting fruit is found. Flies may collect in homes, restaurants, stores, and other locations. However, because Drosophila do not transmit human disease and are essentially harmless, they do not fulfill the criteria to classified as a pest.

The name and behavior of this species of fly has led to the misconception that it is a biological security risk in Australia. While other "fruit fly" species do pose a risk, the D. melanogaster is attracted to fruit that is already rotting, rather than causing fruit to rot."


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? The section about the 'Misconceptions' related to Drosophila seemed like it could use further editing and more sources to clarify the subject matter. (See above paragraph pasted here directly from the original article).
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of them are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of them do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

"However, because Drosophila do not transmit human disease and are essentially harmless, they do not fulfill the criteria to classified as a pest."


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, a few (See line pasted above from the 'Misconceptions' section of the article).
 * 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
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but more images could be added to a few sections such as "Grooming" and "Flying" to better illustrate said concepts.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

"Where is the genome that decide wich eye colour the fly will get?  The great Darren shan fan   12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)"

"I find it strange that so much article space is devoted to Drosophila vision. One could justify writing in-depth accounts of fly olfaction, reproduction, etc., but there is little mention of them. I would guess that the author of the vision passage chose to write so much about that topic because it was his area of expertise, and he felt it was important. I'm not recommending that the passage on vision be deleted, I just want to point out that it is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article. Deadcorpse 21:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)"


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? People have asked questions about genomes that decide what eye color flies get, somebody also inquired as to why the article focuses so deeply on the Fly's vision (see questions pasted above).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as B-class and yes, it is a part of WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? People on Wikipedia seem to be more specific in their suggestions and comments when discussing the topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Drosophila melanogaster was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria.


 * What is the article's overall status? It used to be a part of the 'Natural Sciences Good Articles' but it has been removed from that list. It is a Delisted Good article (See Status pasted above).
 * What are the article's strengths? Has a lot of concise, genetic research information that is backed by authentic sources.
 * How can the article be improved? More images can be added to some sections, also more sources (that are latest) can update the article to include latest research.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think this article is well-developed but it could use some additions in terms of sources.

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: Talk:Drosophila melanogaster