User:RG2022/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Genetically encoded voltage indicator)

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 closely relates to the content of my class, which is the Epigenetics of Neuroscience. Genetically encoded voltage indicators matter because they notify voltage changes that occur in the cell usually through fluorescence, which allows for voltage changes to be seen in the laboratory in real time. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was well-written and detailed.

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 lead section has a concise introductory sentence that summarizes what the article is about. While every following section is not detailed in the intro, I believe that the intro sentence is still concise and useful. The lead sentence does not contain information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise.

The article is neutral and is written in a scientific tone, focusing on the known facts rather than speculation or theory.

Most of the sources are backed up, thorough, and current, with authors from all ethnicities and nationalities. The links are also functional. There are a couple links from official websites that are not peer-reviewed journals, however. Some links are not in English, so a translation service may be required.

I believe that the article is clear, organized and easy to read.

There are no images in the article.

There are currently no conversations in the talk page. The article is part of the Wikiproject articles for creation as well as for electrical engineering. We have not discussed this topic in class yet, and we probably will not discuss it because it is a bioengineering device rather than an epigenetic process.

I think that the article's status is that it is a work in progress and can be improved. The information in the article is concise and clear, but it could be elaborated on as more research comes out. I would say that the article is developed based on the current understanding of the topic but will probably need some updating in the future.