User:Xengvang/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: Growth hormone
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article gives direct information pertaining growth hormone. My disease of interest is acromegaly and needless to say, growth hormone is central to acromegaly. By understanding growth hormone and its structure as well as biochemical, physiological and anatomical features, I will be better prepared to dive into acromegaly. This article also helps develop my overall understanding of endocrinology and its intricacies.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does. It tells me what GH is, what its composed of, its function and where it can be found.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it does. It begins with the structure and function of GH then leads to clinical/medical applications as well as other usage such as agriculture.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not. The article follows the lead in a fairly precise manner; there were no irrelevant information or passages.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and short. It gives us a general idea of what GH is, however does not overwhelm us.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content here speaks on GH's structure and function as well as applications in the world. It does a good job at giving us quick insight into what GH is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, although some articles are fairly old (early 2000's) it is still up to date as GH has not changed so much where we must define and classify it differently. The last edit to the page was also on October 13,2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No everything is in place. The subheadings were in order and followed the contents table. Everything here is relevant and does not need to be removed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, it does not. This article speaks strictly on GH's structure, function and application. It does not include any equity gaps nor speaks to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it is very neutral. The article does not seem to be biased; it also includes links to nearly each statement. This article also shows neutrality by writing in a manner that does not refute or support a topic/hypothesis, rather it just mentions the possibility of it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, this article was great in its stance. It did not show any biases, for example the article writes passively by using words such as "have not been able to" in the quote "Some recent studies have not been able to support claims that human growth hormone can improve the athletic performance of professional male athletes", demonstrating their nonpartisanship.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * For the most part, each subheading here is represented equally depending on their degree of relevance and if they have their own specific article already. The exception to this is the Biochemistry portion with only one sentence on half life. I think that adding this small sentence to the regulation subheading would be better.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it does not. The article remains passive throughout and when applicable, presents both sides of the argument.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most of the sources are peer reviewed articles. The sources come from credible sites such as Nature.com and NCBI.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, most if not all of these articles sourced reflect what we currently know about GH. The article at minimal, includes some speculations.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes for the most part. The majority of the sources were from 95' - early 2000's, but as mentioned earlier, GH is a fairly conserved peptide hormone and drastic changes to its structure and function are unlikely.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, they are diverse. The sources range from genetic research to nature and come from internationally acclaimed journals, however does not necessarily include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they all work, however some need subscriptions to access the full article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is easy to navigate and read. It is apparent that the authors invested time into this article as it flows smoothly and follows the content table.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, there were no grammatical errors as I read through it. It is well written.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it was well organized. Each point has a section to itself and the contents within them were relevant to the topic. Nearly each topic included at least one cited source to better explain and provide further detail.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are two figures that help in understanding. The first is a 3D model of GH which helps visualization of the peptide and how it would function. The second figure depicts a pathway for GH. This gives way for connection to other topics related to GH.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes and no as there weren't many captions, however the figure itself was self-explanatory.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, both images belong to the public domain and can be shared freely.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are easy to read and flow well with the article, however, I think that if more images were added, it would be helpful in understanding GH more.

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 most recent ones are of disputes over grammar and insignificant issues such as nomenclature. Earlier conversations include growth hormone and false information on bodybuilding and the latest ones include modifications of external links.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Level 5 Vital Article, Class B; Molecular and Cell Biology, Pharmacology WikiProject. Class B is considered mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses growth hormone in a very broad manner, encompassing many fields from medicine to recreational use, whereas we focus mainly on biological aspects of it, especially in lab research.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is listed as a B-Class and Top-Importance. It has a great deal of contributors and valid sources. Overall, it gives us good idea of GH, however needs more work and possibly an update.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Concise facts
 * Structure and function
 * Rough idea of GH
 * General applications of GH
 * External sources to learn more about GH
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can use more figures as well as more captions on the figure. I think that an interactive 3D model of GH and an amino sequence would be extremely helpful in understand GH.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well developed. It is organized, concise and contains valid information from accredited sources as well as having a recently active group of editors, however it is not perfect and could use more work.

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: