User:Sieradzkig/Evaluate an Article

SymE-SymR toxin-antitoxin system: Article Evaluation
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: SymE-SymR toxin-antitoxin system
 * I am interested in this article because I have a little experience in researching toxin-antitoxin systems. However, this is limited experience, and I want to learn more about toxin-antitoxin systems while also learning more about prokaryotic systems. The article is limited in its amount of information, so I see this as a great opportunity to enhance the information that is already there while adding to it to improve the breadth of the article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does contain an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic. The Lead could be more clearly described as there are some words that are some areas that are vague and do not clearly articulate the subject. The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and the Lead includes very limited information present in the article. For instance, it is states that SymR inhibits translation of SymE, and this is something that is discussed later on in the article. However, this information is not very detailed and only consists of a few sentences. The Lead is very concise and is not overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic, but the information is not presented in a way that is enjoyable to read or in a way that aids in understanding. There are random pieces of information provided under the "Discovery of the system" heading, and these terms are linked, but there is a lot of confusion in trying to understand the significance of that information. Additionally, the heading "Mechanism of toxicity" seems to contain relevant information, but again, there are pieces of information provided that are confusing or not well presented for easy understanding. The references show that most of the sources are from 2012 or older, so there is an opportunity to improve upon the references used. The content does not seem up-to-date as there are studies and scientific articles that I can find as recent as 2018. All of the content seems to belong, but it can be presented in a better way so that the information is cohesive and not disjointed. Some information that could be added to improve the content of the article would be what types of organisms this system is present in, a brief description of the molecular biology behind the mechanism, and possibly some visual 3D models showing the mechanism of action.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article's tone is very neutral. There are not claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There really are not any viewpoints. The majority of the information is completely factual, and the article only presents this information and does not try to persuade the reader in any way. Additionally, the amount of information in the article is very limited, so there really has not been an opportunity for any of the authors to make a biased statement.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the sources listed under the "References" heading seem to all come from credible scientific journals. These references also reflect the topic well. However, the sources are not necessarily thorough as there are new studies and articles that have been published going into further detail on this topic. The latest source on this article is from 2012, but there are published articles from 2018. The sources are not as current as they could be. Additionally, there is a "Further reading" heading which continues to show published information from credible scientific journals. These sources seem to explain toxin-antitoxin mechanisms in general rather than focusing specifically on SymE-SymR. The links that were checked do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article does not have a lot of content. However, for what content is there, it is easy to read and concise. The content is not necessarily clear, though, so it will need additional information to help improve the layout of information. There are not any grammatical or spelling errors other than the fact that characterized is spelled with "s". Overall, the article is well organized, but it definitely needs more information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in the article, and it was actually created by one of the article's authors (Jebus989). Other than that, there are no other images. The only image that is there has a caption that is clear and concise. Personally, I would like to try to incorporate images from 3D modeling. The last experience I had with toxin-antitoxin systems involved understanding how the system worked through 3D models. I found it easier to visualize what they were discussing. This may pose some issues regarding copyright rules, but I could also attempt to model the system if I find the correct PDB matching to the system.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations going on behind the scenes on how to represent this topic. However, when I checked page statistics, there seems to be a few edits completed by one of the students in Prokaryotic Processes, separate from myself. The article is rated as low-importance on the projects importance scale. It has also been rated as start-class on the project's quality scale. It is only a part of the MSOE WikiProjects. This topic has not been discussed in class, so it is difficult to determine how Wikipedia discusses this topic in relation to our class. The major edits that have been made to the article were to first create the article and then to add some information about the history of the toxin-antitoxin system.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article needs a lot of editing to help add to the content of the topic. The article is in a good place with regards to the information it has already, and it provides a great starting point for what the focus should be for building the topic. The article should have more detail regarding the mechanism and it would be great to find research that has been done regarding modeling aspects of the system. This would help add more visual images to the article. The article as a whole is underdeveloped, but the information that is currently there is well developed.

Optional activity
I could not find any relevant information on the Talk page.


 * 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: