User:Pjtian/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:  Emmanuelle Charpentier
 *  Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:  As a lab TA for a course teaching the gene editing techniques that Charpentier won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, I was curious to see the information on her wikipedia page and what potential areas of values was observed. I was also wondering if her sudden fame in winning this award would lead to more changes to her wikipedia page or not.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does include an introductory sentence that directly outlines Charpentier's areas of research and her academic affiliation.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Although there are not many sections, the lead has clearly shown the different sections that will be discussed (Early Life, Career and Research, CRISPR/Cas9, Awards).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does include a brief mention on Charpentier winning this year's 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry as important since it is the only science award to be won by two women, which is not seen in anywhere else of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise and clearly followed by the reader as it outlines the brief path of Charpentier's career in chronological order.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead was written well and contained all the necessary information that the major sections were outlined as.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to Charpentier's career as it is chronologically ordered with her various academic research and affiliations over time.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up-to-date since the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded 4 days ago and the wikipedia page has already contained this information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * While the wikipedia page is brief and only focuses on her professional scientific career, I think more detail could go into the specifics of her research as it is only briefly listed. I also believe that any additional life events or personal impact beyond scientific research should also be included (if available).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gap on articles regarding women scientists. The article does not address underrepresented populations or topics besides the brief mention in the lead on winning the only science Nobel Prize award with another women.

Content evaluation
The current content of the article is up-to-date, but may not be reaching its full potential in terms of coverage on the specifics of Charpentier's research or non-scientific impact.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral as most discussions are centered around chronological facts regarding Charpentier's work and academic affiliations.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article does heavily focus on Charpentier's work on CRISPR editing, but it is her most famous work, so it is unclear whether the viewpoint is truly overrepresented. A few topics could potentially be underrepresented depending on what information is available, but not much detail is present on her research and non-scientific contributions.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reading one way or another.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is appropriate and the balance may or may not be appropriate, depending on the resources available to add more content to the article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All facts are backed up by reliable sources like Nature, the New York Times or official academic websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While the sources do vary in published organizations and time, it is unclear whether this is all that is available or there are additional resources that no one has spent the time yet to include on the page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current as the most recent source was published 4 days ago, and there are a good number of additional sources within the last ten years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * None of the sources are written by those who are not involved in the scientific community. It is unclear if the authors are marginalized individuals since the sites are official sites where the authors are not listed.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references do include a wide variety or article types and are current within the last ten years. But, it is unclear whether or not there are more sources to be included or not, which would build on the evaluation of the content.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-organized as it focuses chronologically on Charpentier's work over time.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized and has the appropriate language.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not include images that enhance understanding of Charpentier. To better understand her work, more images explaining the science behind her research should be added or at least linked.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well captioned in what they represent.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are a little small and seem forced to be added to the article that it detracts slightly from the visual appeal of the page.

Images and media evaluation
The image and media included on the topic is limited and should expand to Charpentier's actual research or awards to better understand her work and contribution.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There has been no real conversations happening on this page aside from a few modifications on external links.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as a C-class and is a part of the following WikiProjects: Science & Academia, Molecular and Cell Biology, Women Scientists, and France.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * From reading criticism of wikipedia pages, I was expecting a few biases towards women regarding topics discussed primarily focused on family life. But, the topics and content discussed actually do not show any discriminatory attitudes. Although, the lack of content on the page regarding the depth of her research may be a sign suggesting that her work is not as important enough to go into detail, which would lend to biases towards gender potentially.

Talk page evaluation
The lack of discussion on the talk page leaves me wondering how a wikipedia page could have up-to-date editing or content, but still not fully capture the topic discussed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I believe this article is strong in its tone and organization, but lacks depth in content. While the article does not detract from Charpentier's work or reputation, it does not fully highlight her impact.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's tone and organization was clear and neutral.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article's content lacked insight on the underlying mechanisms or approaches to her research or any other non-scientific contribution.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I believe that the article is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
The article is off to a good start in terms of tone and organization, but needs further work on the content and sources included.

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: