User:Seniorstudent1212/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence in the article about gene expression concisely describes the process.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead section identifies all of the article's major sections and a contents table is included within this section.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, all information discussed in the lead section is found in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and does not include extra details needed to understand the topic.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all parts of the content are relevant to understanding the process of gene expression.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content in this article is up to date because the majority of the articles cited were published within the last 20 years when possible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the content included in this article seems relevant to understanding the topic.
 * 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 not deal with a Wikipedia equity gap nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes, all of the information in this article is objective.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all claims are argued equally and all provide relevant sources.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints are discussed equally.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * All theories described are widely accepted in the respective fields.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is completely objective in the presented viewpoints.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Information is supported by reliable sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * This article provides 89 unique sources in the citations.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current as most of them are within the past 20 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Various authors are cited within this article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * This article predominantly cites published journal articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The selected links do work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were no grammatical or spelling errors noted.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is well-organized and shows thought was given to the order of information.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, multiple images were included to describe the text and help further the reader's understanding of the information.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * All images include concise descriptions describing what is occurring.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * All images seem to adhere to the copyright regulations as the images that were tested all led to other wikipedia cites that used the same image.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, all images are laid out in a visually appealing way as they are well spaced out.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are conversations about editing the article to make it more general, improving the wording to make it more accurate, and less bias.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated B-Class and Top-importance. This article is part of the WikiProject Genetics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We discussed parts of DNA translation and transcription but this article goes into more detail and provides more context of the processes involved.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has been archived.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Some of the article's strength's includes providing a brief overview of the process in simple terms, including various images when possible, and adding hyperlinks to relevant articles to learn more information about separate processes. The organization of the article also helps piece all of the information together.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * While the article has many strengths, it could be improved by adding images within the measurement section where the lab techniques were discussed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is very well developed because various aspects are addressed with a thorough introduction to the topic and a logical organization.

Which article are you evaluating?
Gene expression

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 we started discussing DNA, RNA, and protein in the lecture and I wanted to learn more about this topic to brush up on my knowledge. This topic is very important because it is the basis to understand all other cellular processes. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was thorough and concise with explaining the contents.