User:Rose gold12/sandbox/Article Evaluation

Questions for the article Zinc Finger Inhibitor

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything within this article is relevant. Initially, a background is given with information as to why zinc finger inhibitors are being implemented, which apparently it seems they have been introduced for the purpose of combating HIV. The article then goes on to talk about the target site, the ejector compounds and safety concerns, all of which are pertinent to the subject.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article, I think, does a good job of staying neutral. I failed to see any bias, or outlandish remarks that seemed to be based on opinion rather than fact. I'm pretty confident that the author was successful in remaining unbiased and was just simply stating the facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * While the article may not be very long, I think the article still captured most of the pertinent information necessary for the Zinc Finger Inhibitor Wiki page. Viewpoints that were touched upon, seemed to be touched upon equally, with many forms of the ejector compounds being mentioned. It seems that the inhibitors are a relatively new area of study in science, and so I believe the author did quite well at explaining the subject with what I assume to be relatively little information.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The few citations that I checked had links that work, and they looked to be reputable sources. The one article seemed to be used for background information, while the other looked to support her claim that the zinc fingers on the HIV-1 nucleocapsid protein is now a potential target for combating HIV-1.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Throughout the article the author has added citations, and they all appear to be reputable science journal articles, rather than websites or magazine articles. These articles came from scientific journals, such as AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, Nucleic Acids Research, Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Journal of Virology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Journal of Medical Chemistry, etc. The articles I looked up either noted that there was no bias, or indicated who their funding came from.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * There information seems pretty up to date. Some of the articles are from the 1990s, however I do see a few articles from 2016 and 2017. The article also says that the last time it was edited was in September 2017. While, that seems pretty relevant, I'm sure more information has come out since then, at least about the trials, and more information could be added.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * It doesn't appear that any conversations are going on in the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article has been rated as Stub-Class and Low-importance. The Stub-Class rating indicates that the article is very short and needs much work. The Low-Importance rating means that the subject is obscure. The article appears to be a student article done for a class, just like our my molecule project.