User:PhoenyxFeatherz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Biophysics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article is relevant to understanding the field of biophysics more thoroughly before jumping in to my biophysics class. My first impression is that the cartoon is very interesting to the side, and that it makes less mention of physics in the beginning introduction and does not pin "why" biophysics has been adapted or is important (which I find to be important to a thesis of an article).

Evaluate the article
This article houses many strengths in what biophysics actually is (in terms of its overlaps in the different scientific fields), but I also believe it to be lacking in its overview.

The strengths are as follows:

Starting with the lead paragraph, the lead sentence succinctly defines the topic. The lead also includes a content overview (from 1-6). The lead does not include any info that is not present in the body of the article, which is good for consistency, and the content is relevant to the topic. The neutral POV offers good consistency throughout, as there is not persuasive language. Facts in the article are indeed backed by reliable and modern sources of information (2018 articles, etc), and the links do work. The article is definitely concise, which is both a positive and a minus for a field that is constantly evolving (not enough is said about it). The article is a C-class level-5 vital article. The article’s strength is that it is of a neutral tone, has a general clarity of the subject and houses some good resources.

Here are some suggestions for improvement:

The content may or may not be up-to-date; it’s difficult to tell due to the concision of the article (it would be nice to see a sentence or two on the development of “modern” biophysics, as the article calls it, citing that biophysics is a field that is constantly evolving today).

The sources are not thorough, however, because there is so much to be said on the topic of biophysics. More could definitely be added. More references to books on the biophysics topic (Bialek, Waigh, Thompson {as cited in the Talks on the page}) that are both relevant and recent might be valuable to add to the article.

The organization in the Overview section is a little choppy—there is a first paragraph on molecular biophysics first and then technology usage and then structural biology and medical physics, which seems very choppy and off-putting when a lineage of overlaps (in the lead paragraphs) was initially given. The structure of this particular section seems haphazard and incoherent. Maybe start with the lead as a structure organizer: “Biophysical research shares significant overlap with biochemistry, molecular biology, physical chemistry, physiology, nanotechnology, bioengineering, computational biology, biomechanics, developmental biology and systems biology." Take each of these as a section to expound upon.

The images used are very interesting, however they are never referenced in any of the contents (this would be useful in understanding how they actually fit in the scope of biophysics). The images are well-captioned, however, yet they do not have a source reference.

The talk on this article houses several comments on how to improve this article, not least of which being: “if you can improve it, please do,” which cites the ever-evolving nature of the subject. Many people cite different sources that seem to better showcase the subject and which should be inserted into the article (Thompson), etcetera. Also, individuals seem to think that the topics covered in the article are too broad and overarching to make the point about biophysics (I tend to agree; there needs to be concision but with a greater stretch of the subject’s reach).

The article’s status is one of “needing improvement.” The article can be improved by better organization, specifically in the overview section, and it needs to be more specific about each of the topics that biophysics covers, as well as adding more relevant source material. I believe the article to be underdeveloped. I am so interested in this subject, but I was disappointed to find that the overview left many subjects of my interest to be lacking. The biggest takeaway for me was the feeling that I needed to go elsewhere to really understand what biophysics is and how it is applicable to all of the fields mentioned.