User:SkozkrEinradi/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen this article because it describes the field I want to enter.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

This Lead does describe the field, but it lacks written flair. It seems like a filler until the authors come up with something better.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

It does not.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

It does, very generally.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is not concise nor detailed enough.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes


 * Is the content up-to-date?

It would seem so at first glance.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The just needs to be more to determine. The field is relatively new and the talk page is discussing merging it with something else.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

It would appear so.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Nothing is overrepresented in this article except for the word molecular. Actual information about the topic is underrepresented.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

It does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, but there are also a few that still need citation.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

It looks thorough for a beginning attempt.


 * Are the sources current?

It would seem so.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

I really don't know how to answer this.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It is easy to read.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Grammatical, perhaps. No spelling errors.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I do not think so, no.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

It doesn't contain any photos.


 * Are images well-captioned?

No photos.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Not applicable.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Not applicable.

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 conversation is about how there isn't enough information about this topic. Then some background information to the history of the topic.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is part of two WikiProjects, one being Medicine and the other being Molecular and Cellular Biology. The topic is rated low priority for the Medicine project, and highly for the other. The article is by and large very incomplete.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It doesn't, everything seems to flow in just the way the class discussed, even how editors speak to one another.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

Incomplete.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The desire of the editors in the talk to get more information to add to the page.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article could be improved by revising the lead to reflect more of what is in the actual article and to find more information to add to the article.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I would say that it is in its infant stage and has a lot of work that needs to be done.

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: