User:Joseph Oldam/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Gregg L. Semenza
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose this article since Dr. Semenza plays a huge role at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is a professor there that teaches many different courses ranging from radiation to pediatrics. Dr. Semenza was also recently awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine just last year in 2019, making him a very well known name in Hopkins right now.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the first sentence talks about him being a professor, researcher, and his Nobel prize which are the main components of the article.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The Lead provides a brief description of most of the article's major sections however, it does not state anything about his education or his personal life but instead dives straight into him being a professor, researcher, and American Nobel Laureate.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, the Lead includes information that is present in the article except that in the body of the article, the information is of course explained much more deeply with more citations. However, the Lead mentions the basic idea of why Dr. Semenza received his Nobel Prize but this same basic idea is no longer introduced when the article talks about his research. Instead, there is only hard science in that area of the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The Lead is concise and to the point, it gives a basic background and fulfills its purpose effectively.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, everything in the article talks about Dr. Semenza and is mostly about his career/research.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes, it was last edited on 01/25/2020 and includes information from the past year that is relevant to the topic indicating that it is up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There are only 2 sentences in the Personal Life section implying that content from that section is missing or is not yet public knowledge.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, the article does not provide any bias towards or against Dr. Semenza and appears to only be attempting to state the facts.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Fortunately no, everything is written very neutrally.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Not that I can see. Most of the viewpoints are simply just facts about his research although, there is barely anything in his Personal Life section so if viewpoints were to be underrepresented, it would have to be there.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the article does not have any real position. It seems to simply be just stating facts about Dr. Semenza.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, all of the citations made in the article seemed to be backed up by reliable sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, most of the sources are editorials on his research and are valuable. Some sources are also from journals that his research was published so there is a steady stream of both editorial sources and citations from his research.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, they are either current for the time period of the award that they refer to or are just current to today.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, the links that I checked work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes it was clear and easy to read
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
not that I am aware of
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
yes, it was organized and easy to follow through

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, there is one image of a cell and the biochemical pathway that the HIFs follow to show a little more understanding on what his discovery does.
Are images well-captioned?
- This image wasn't necessarily captioned but just given an accurate title.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, they are easy to understand for a lay person.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There were no conversations.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- There are projects such as the WikiProject Biography that want to create the page to be more like a biography, it was rated start for start-class on the quality scale. There is also a thread from WikiProject Medicine that wants the article to be more medical based than anything else and was rated low for low importance on the importance scale and start for start-class on the quality scale.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- Wikipedia just determined that it was not that important of a topic to get done right now but in class I feel that we stressed more importance on it.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article is incomplete but all of the information on it seems to be correct.
What are the article's strengths?
- It states information directly from a very neutral standpoint.
How can the article be improved?
- It could provide much more information about the research, how it was acquired, and also more information about Dr. Semenza himself and his personal life such as what brought him to medicine in the first place.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is certainly underdeveloped. It is great now but needs a lot more work.

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 — ~~~~