User:TroyHart65/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: (Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The article in questions was a topic of interest for me and I felt it went well with the course material discussed in class. Additionally, the article has a solid base of information included in it but it could be added to/improved. Some of the information in the article could have been better explained and rearraigned to better fit the flow of the article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

1) The lead does include an introductory sentence the concisely and clearly describes the articles topics; However, its wording may not be so easy for someone with a minimal genetic or biological understanding of the topic discussed in the article.

2) The lead does not include a brief description of the articles major sections.

3) Lead does not not include information that is not present in the article.

4) The lead is concise but it could of included a little more coverage of the other major topics discussed in the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

1) The articles content is relevant to the topic discussed in the article. The content discussed in the controversies section (section 6) is particularly interesting.

2) The content of the article is up to date. The majority of the sources cited in this article range from 2008-2016. Though there may be some new information added in more recent years, the knowledge built/major principles of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance was established long before 2008.

3) There is not content that does not belong but there is some content that could. More specifically there is more information that could be added to the content that already exists.

4) No it does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.


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

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

1) The article is neutral. It provides information without any bias or intention of trying to persuade the reader.

2) There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position. In fact, the article has an entire section dedicated to the controversies of the topic discussed.

3) There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The information in the macroevolutionary category can be built on but it is not necessarily a biased viewpoint.

4)


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

1) All of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources provide solid information that is not biased and backed by reason. Many of the sources cited in this article are reviews of the topic discussed. Reviews are good because they provide a broader scope of the information disclosed regarding topics discussed.

2) The sources are thorough and do reflect the information provided in the literature on the topics discussed in the article.

3) The sources are current, although there are some sources that are 20+ years old; However, the majority of the sources are between 4 and 12 years old.

4) There are a large variety of authors in this article. Considering the article is science based, there are plenty of authors that come from marginalized groups but the article has nothing to do with the social conundrum of marginalization of particular groups.

5) Yes the links work.


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

Organization

 * Guiding questions

1) The article could be better written when discussing certain subsections of the article. Sometimes, the article did not present the information in a manner that could make it easily understood for someone with zero previous knowledge of the topic or little background digesting higher level terms often utilized in the scientific community (particularly the biological community). There article could also use some rearranging to better flow and build the information developed in the article in a clearer fashion.

2) There are some grammatical errors in the article but they are limited. There were no spelling errors that I could find.

3) The articles organization is not poor but it could be better.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

1) Yes, the article include images that enhance the understanding of the topic, though there could be more.

2) The images are well-captioned.

3) Yes, all the images adhere to the wikipedia's copyright regulations.

4) The images are laid out in a visually appealing manner.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

1) The conversations are geared to revisions made to the article.

2) The article is rated as a Class C. It is not a part of Genetics (High-Importance), Pharmacology (Mid-Importance), and Medicine (Mid-Importance).


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

1) The articles overall status is decent. It does not have an editor assigned to it, which likely is taking away from the article form improving.

2) The strengths of this article is that it has strong sources and the information in provided in a matter of fact manner. There are no biased tones underlining the articles content.

3) The article can be improved by updating some of the information, adding an editor, rearranging certain parts of the article, and presenting the information in the article in a way that can be more easily understood by those who have no previous understanding of the topic.

4) The article is somewhat underdeveloped.


 * 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?

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: