User:Schamdin/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: Genetic code
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate this article because its content is relevant to our course matter. In addition, this article was categorized as a "GA" level article, one I would use for reference when working on my own.

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 is both concise and provides an overview for what the article will talk about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does provide a brief description of the article's major sections, and even links key words to later parts of the article, making it very easy to follow along.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead mentions certain concepts (or key vocabulary) that is not exactly described in detail in this particle article, however it does link related articles that delve much deeper into these topics to these concepts/words.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise, yet still provides enough information to both introduce the topic and give a brief overview on what the article will discuss.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is very relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date- with sources and references dating as close as a couple years ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No missing or unneeded content in this article. All information provided helps describe the topic of the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, this article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. Since the topic steers more in the direction of science in the biological sense, it applies to everyone equally.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral- it describes its topic, the genetic code, with only facts and no opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No- all facts and information presented is neutral, researched, and cited.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No- this article merely discusses biological facts rather than explore opinions and possibilities.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article is not meant to be persuasive.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all facts are heavily backed up by resources and references.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * All sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources range from many years ago to very recent articles.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Sources come from a variety of academic journals, studies, and research projects.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links I checked worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is very well written- very understandable and easy to follow along.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The format and organization of the article is very well written, allowing the reading ease of understanding and the ability to clearly follow along.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes multiple images that help enhance understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Images are well captioned and described in relation to the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes- they are scattered around the article and placed in reference to the content being described.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The visuals, particularly the tables used in this article, are being discussed. Editors also discussed sources used in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I found this article in the Biology WikiProjects. It is within the scope of the WikiProjects Molecular and Cell biology, Genetics, and Biology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is very close to the way we have briefly mentioned it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. Current status = Good Article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is well cited and researched. It also has many editors and contributors.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I agree with some of the discussion on the talk page about removing one of the tables present in the article. Other contributors provide a better example of what could be added that would be easier to understand and less redundant.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think this article is very well-developed.

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: