User:Sshuman4/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article 1
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Mycovirus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am interested in pathology and pharmacology. Mycovirus plays to both and serves as an interested intersection.

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 broadly describes what's to be covered in the article.

The Lead refers to co-divergence with hosts which is not well-covered in the article.

The Lead is concise.

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
Yes, the content is relevant and provides a solid base for anyone interested in learning about mycology.

Yes, this article contains up to date information and was last edited within the last month.'The "History" section is brief and specific.

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 is neutral.

No, the article represents a balanced, unbiased viewpoint. It does not attempt to persuade the reader.

The History section is underrepresented and could use more foundation with other examples.

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
Sources are prevalent and correctly placed. They are however, relatively outdated with the majority being at least 10 years old. There are a plethora of recent articles on the topics.

The links are functioning.

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 is clear, concise, and grammatically correct. It is a little difficult to read assuming the reader does not have a background in science or understanding of specific biological terms.

It is well broken down.

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
This article does not include images. Images could enhance specific sections of this article (e.g. History and Transmission sections).

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 is one old conversation regarding whether or not to include more information on virus like particles.

This article is rated as Class-C (high importance) and is under the Fungi and Virus projects.

This article follows what we have discussed about viruses in class, although this goes more in depth into taxonomy and the mechanics of viral transmission.

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
The article is still being updated.

Strengths: The article provides a strong foundational basis of mycoviruses. There is enough context and detail to understand the background and mechanics of mycoviruses.

Improvements: This article can be further strengthened with a more in-depth History section, specific examples of more mycoviruses and their function, and more sources/inclusion of recent publications.

This article is underdeveloped.

Evaluate an article 2
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Mesolimbic pathway
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am a Neuroscience major and particularly in how various molecules, namely recreational drugs, affect the reward system

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 sentence is concise and descriptive of the article. Overall, the Lead contains an excellent overview of the content to come minus its relation/implications in diseases (e.g. those mentioned in the Clinical Significance sections).

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
While brief, the article's content is pertinent to the topic. It contains appropriate subsections to adequately depict the structure, functioning, and implications of the mesolimbic system. The majority of the content is ~10 years old and needs to be updated. It is missing content on how it relates to other structures/functioning of the brain such as the mesocortical pathway of which it is closely associated with. Additionally, I would like to see more information about other neurotransmitters in the "Function" section.

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
This article is neutral and written in an unbiased manner. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

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
The article is well sourced for the amount of information present.

Some links such as the "ventral pallidum" link do not lead to the correct webpage.

The sources are thorough, but could be more up to date and representative of the available literature.

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 is clear, concise, and grammatically correct. It is easy to read, however it may be more difficult for someone without any science background/knowledge of anatomical terms.

It is well broken down and organized.

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
This article does not include images. Images could enhance specific sections of this article (e.g. the Anatomy section).

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
Current conversations include etymology and structure/function of the prefrontal cortex as it relates to the reward pathway.

This article is rated class-C (mid importance) and is part of neurology/neuroscience/pharmacology wiki projects.

We have not touched upon much of neuroscience/neurotransmitters in class.

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
The article is still being updated.

Strengths: The article provides a strong foundational basis of the mesolimbic system. There is enough context and detail to understand the structure, function, and implications of this system.

Improvements: This article can be further strengthened with a more in-depth "Function" and "Clinical Significance" section.

This article is underdeveloped.

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: