User:Rnelson2021/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Biomarker - Wikipedia (previous)

Neuroinflammation - Wikipedia (New)

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the article on biomarkers because I wanted to understand its importance in in the field of biotechnology. Since biomarkers are used as indicators for the condition of different processes in the cells, so I wanted to learn about the different conditions and systems it can be used to track in the human body. Initially, I am very impressed by how detailed and simple the article is. The article gives a basic understanding of what biomarkers are and then goes on to examine its applications and variations in medicine as well as science.

'''I chose to evaluate the page on Neuroinflammation because I wanted to learn more about the various neurological conditions that can develop in the brain and what circumstances such as inflammation, may plays a part in their occurrence. Due to the isolated and sensitive nature of the CNS there are still many unanswered questions about the different types of molecules that are able to move freely and interact with the CNS through the Blood brain barrier.'''

Evaluate the article
The introductory sentence is very concise and specific as to avoid confusions between its applications as a scientific device and research journal category. The leading description does indeed cover the essence of the articles major topics but doesn't directly indicate the specific direction or extent to which these topics will be covered. I believe this to be the case since the introduction was written so brief and expansive as to give the author appropriate space to add further context and examples of how biomarkers are being used in science and research. In the lead section, there are two sentences are digital biomarkers that serves as background knowledge rather than a tease to how it will be expanded upon later in the article. The lead isn't overly detailed and is concise enough to give readers a understanding of the main principle and applications that biomarkers can be used in. The article used sources that are up to date and reflect the current usage or understanding of biomarkers in research and scientific study. The only content I believe is missing, is on digital biomarkers and how they are currently being used in the field of science and research. They are mentioned in the second half of the introduction section in order to broaden the readers understand of biomarker application but are never mentioned again throughout the article. I don't know if this information was left out due to insufficient current sources, but if that in in self would have made the necessity of including the topic mute. The article is from a neutral point of view and makes no effort to persuade the reader towards a specific opinion on the usefulness or potential of biomarkers as a scientific tool. The claims in the article don't try and lead the reader towards a position but more so give basic scientific understand of how biomarkers work in different research approaches and experimental observations. The article only seeks to make the reader understand how biomarkers were discovered, used in different subjects and studied to be applied in new emerging fields of study. All claims made in the article are backed up by credible secondary sources that established mostly within the last decade. Some of the sources were even made this year and the previous, ensuring that the author is using information up to date with the knowledge of the current generation. It is however disappointing to see that the article has only one picture/graph used to illustrate how data from diagnostic biomarkers are recorded and studied. While one could argue that the topic was not as sophisticated or difficult enough to require visual aids, more illustrations would have allowed readers to better visual the concept and how they can come in various forms depending on the usage and filed on study they are applied in. The talk page discussions focus mainly on the ambiguity around biomarkers and whether it is an actual substance or measured of a process. The discussion dictates that it could be both depending on what type of process is being measured or observed. Someone wanted to know what made it different from a bioindicator, which is said to be more of organism and biologic response itself than a measure of one. The article is rated C-class and is part of 2 wiki projects for medicine and molecular biology. The talk page seems to focus more on the understanding of proper terminology usage rather that the scientific function or application in research. Overall while I believe this article to be a good read, it falls short as a proper piece of work meant to accurately explain the various application biomarkers in science. Its main intro is concise, but covers a topic not expanded upon at all. There was only one diagnostic biomarker graph shown even though a table was referenced in the passage. The text under the graph don't link to the proper source and there are a lot of ambiguity in the explanation of the specific traits that define biomarkers from other organisms or substance that are also used to determine or evaluate biological processes. The article's strength lies in its simplistic approach toward explaining how biomarkers have different forms and usage in research and study. improvement can come on more references, more images to give illustrations and more specific wording into the nature of biomarkers and how they are different from other methods of measuring or identifying specific processes. The article is underdeveloped, but its foundation is still strong enough to easily be fixed.

'''The introduction sentence is short and to the point. It directly defines the topic but probably could be a little bit longer in order to give a more well defined explanation. The lead section does a good job of briefly introducing the topic and explaining some of the fundamental concepts. Although the introduction gives some background on the central nervous system, there is a concerted effort to further expound about its correlation to various conditions and processes to affect the CNS along with potential treatments. All the content sections in the article are relevant to the topic and have sources that have been updated with the last five years. Given the fact that the topic is still a relatively unexplored field, there is not missing information as much as there is new novel information being discovered in regards to inflammation from spinal injuries along with the immune system’s response playing both a positive and negative role in recovery from damage. The article is neutral and does not seek to persuade the reader towards any opinion on the information presented. Each section is given equal exposure, but with the addition of new information to the field, that may change out of necessity more than bias. The sources used in the article are diverse and recent. They express several conclusions established by many professionals in the field. The article is well organized and structured with excellent grammar. There are however, a lack of imagery to help reader understand some of the information presented. The article is part of wiki projects and the talk page includes multiple evaluations and a few edit suggestions about adding additional information to sections with new information in the field. The article was rated c-class but definitely has potentially to earn a higher grade. The article is strong in its presentation of information and how it details the branching process involved. There is however, a lack of image or diagrams to provide further visual aid to readers. Add that to the fact that new information on the field is constantly be made, the article has a lot of information to be added to the sections at cant really be judged as incomplete since the study of the field itself in untapped.'''