User:Tylersander11/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: Substance P Substance P
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The scientist I decided to update the article of was the first to sequence substance P.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it introduces what substance P is using scientific terminology that is explained in more detail later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not very well, there is a lot of information and it would be difficult to include all of it within the lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Compared to the information found in the rest of the article is it concise. There is a lot of scientific jargon found in the lead but it is explained more in detail later in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the information has been edited recently
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it is scientific information and there are no sides/controversies.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, many sources are used and all points made are backed up by a reliable source
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, and there are plenty of reliable sources used
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes, it is organized in a logical way, however, I would not say it is concise. There is plenty of valuable information but they are mostly necessary to fully describe substance P and everything it has to do with.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article has many different sections that discuss the several aspects of substance P and its effects.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

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 only discussion is about a specific section that talks about the binding of substance P. The user simply posted some information about substance P and its role within physiology, but does not necessarily make any point that there should be a change.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of 3 projects, Chemicals, molecular biology, and pharmacology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article provides a significant amount of information and could not be considered concise.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Several descriptive sections and plenty of information. It also includes a lot of scientific jargon but does a good job of explaining it.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * If possible, making it more concise would help to improve it.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * well developed