User:Cayguy/Evaluate an Article

OK. So you have an interesting process. But you have not discussed anything to do with epigenetics. Certainly epigenetics can factor into this topic. You need to find that linkage.

Start in Pubmed and search for homeosis and epigenetics or even homeotic transformation and epigenetics -- I did not check these two but I think they would work. You could certainly add a section entitled relationship to epigenetics. You also need to find a recent review article relative to this topic. Once you get stuck into this topic you will find that lots of relevant articles do not include epigenetics in the title. Next step is to find some review articles that you can use as source material. The topic is a good one. -- Dr. Atkinson

P.S. When I first looked at this page I missed your material because it was at the bottom of a long boiler plate page.

Which article are you evaluating?

Homeosis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article discusses an important topic in genetics and regards the topic of expression - this can lead to success in an organism thriving in its environment or have the opposite effect, therefore it is important to the development/evolution of these organisms. It is a topic very briefly discussed in most basic genetics courses, but never delved that deeply into, and gives a greater understanding of how mutations can lead to an edit in the organism's genome.

Evaluate the article

Lead

The lead could be slightly altered to be read in more layman's terms; it was difficult to understand if this was a process that occurred normally, or something that was a result of a mutation from the lead. The lead creates a good outline/organizational pathway for the reader. The lead is concise and to the point - and also contains no information not discussed in the preceding text.

Content

All information is relevant to the topic, its history, and is important for the reader to gain a greater understanding. Tone and Balance

Because of the nature of the article, there are no issues with it being non-neutral. It is not biased in any direction.

Sources and References

All sources are reliable, diverse, and peer reviewed. They are not as up to date as they could be - there are no sources newer than 2016. The links appear to work at this time.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing is mostly clear and concise, but could be written in a more digestible manner. The organization and grammar appear to be correct.

Images and Media

There are no images or media.

Talk Page Discussion

There are no discussions on the talk page.

Overall Impressions

The article is well written, and has reliable sources. It would be a reliable source to utilize for more information on homeosis. It is well developed, but could utilize some more recent articles and edits.

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

~~~~