User:Analyticace/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Gene expression

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because we are discussing phenotypic plasticity in this course at the moment. Gene expression plays a role in the topic we are currently learning. I found this to be a good article based on the checkbox given to us in the tutoria.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

The lead introductory sentence cleary describes the articles topic "gene expression". The lead includes a brief description of the main topics. It does not include information that is not present in the article. However, the lead is a bit overly detailed and a little hard to follow for someone who is not familiar with the language or topic.

Content

The content in the article are all relevant to gene expression. From my knowledge of genetics, the content seems up to date. However, there are some references going back to 1958 that may need to be updated or revised. Gene expression can be a rather complex and detailed topic, I believe the authors did their best to input all the information they can in a concentrated space. I think it deals with wikipedia's equity gap, as this is a resourceful article for students or individuals who do not have access to a good source of education. It does not relate to historically underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance

The article seems to have a eukaryotic bias. The article is written with scientific facts and not of opinions. The view points are represented in normal relevance to allow the reader to gain a true understanding of the subject. The article is not in a position to persuade the reader, instead it gives scientific information.

Sources and References

All the facts in the article are backed by reliable sources, however some of the sources may be outdated. The sources are thorough and explain the topics written. The sources range in dates and some may be outdated. There are 90 different sources with a diverse selection of articles and authors. I am not sure if any are historically marginalized. I think the author/authors did the best they could to find the best sources available. The reference links work.

Organization and writing quality

The article is well written, although some parts could be shorter to allow the reader to understand the topic. There are not grammar or spelling errors that I could see. The article is broken down into major sections with minor additions.

Images and Media

The article has many images that enhance understanding. The images have informative captions, adhere to copyright regulations and are visually appealing for the information.

Talk page discussion

There were a few conversations regarding the accuracy of the content and the conciseness of the paragraphs. The article is rated B. It is part of a few wiki projects, genetics, molecular and cellular biology, and molecular biology. This article never mentions that gene expression can be a factor in phenotypic plasticity.

Overall impression

The article is a level 4 B status. The article accurately describes the fundamental information for gene expression. The article can be written with more layman terms for easier understandability. I think the article is well developed and there are other peer reviewers who had added their input.--Analyticace (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)